Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2020] FCA 639
•1 May 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 639
[2020] FCA 639
1 May 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sought interim orders against Secure Investments Pty Ltd, Aquila Group, and Mr Naseeruddin, alleging they had been operating an unregistered managed investment scheme, providing unlicensed and unauthorised financial services, and misappropriating investor funds. The court was required to decide whether to grant ASIC's requests for provisional liquidators, receivers and managers, injunctions, and travel restrictions. The court found that given the significant evidence of asset dissipation and the high probability that ASIC would succeed in its claims, the interim orders were warranted to protect the assets of Secure Investments and prevent further wrongdoing. The court appointed provisional liquidators for Secure Investments and receivers and managers for Aquila Group and Mr Naseeruddin's assets. It also restrained the defendants from removing or dealing with their property, promoting or operating the unregistered scheme, providing financial services, and leaving Australia. The final orders included an adjournment of the further hearing, a case management hearing, and a reservation of costs.
The court concluded that the extraordinary circumstances justified making the interim orders ex parte to prevent the dissipation of assets before the defendants could respond. The serious nature of the allegations, combined with the evidence of asset dissipation, warranted drastic action to secure the defendants' assets and prevent further breaches of the law. Appointing provisional liquidators, receivers and managers, and imposing restraints was necessary to serve the interests of justice and protect the public until the final hearing. The orders aimed to preserve the defendants' assets, investigate the alleged misconduct, and prevent the defendants from obstructing the proceedings or continuing their unlawful activities.
The court concluded that the extraordinary circumstances justified making the interim orders ex parte to prevent the dissipation of assets before the defendants could respond. The serious nature of the allegations, combined with the evidence of asset dissipation, warranted drastic action to secure the defendants' assets and prevent further breaches of the law. Appointing provisional liquidators, receivers and managers, and imposing restraints was necessary to serve the interests of justice and protect the public until the final hearing. The orders aimed to preserve the defendants' assets, investigate the alleged misconduct, and prevent the defendants from obstructing the proceedings or continuing their unlawful activities.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
-
Commercial Law
-
Regulatory Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contraventions of Corporations Act
-
Unregistered Managed Investment Scheme
-
Asset Preservation
-
Provisional Liquidators
-
Receivers and Managers
-
Travel Restraint Order
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 639
Most Recent Citation
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Investments Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCA 399
Cases Citing This Decision
48
In the matter of Quasar Constructions (Commercial) Pty Ltd
[2025] NSWSC 557
Re Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2018] NSWSC 1918
Re Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq)
[2018] NSWSC 1918
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
3
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Burke
[2000] NSWSC 694
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler
[2001] NSWSC 451