Sahai and Australian Securities and Investments Commission

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Chandar Sahai to review a banning order made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Mr Sahai, who operated as a mortgage broker, was banned for seven years. The dispute centred on whether the grounds for imposing a banning order under section 80(1) of the *National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009* (Cth) were made out, and if so, whether the seven-year duration of the ban was appropriate.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Sahai was involved in another person's contravention of a banning order, if he was likely to contravene credit legislation in the future, and if he was a fit and proper person to engage in credit activities, or if there was reason to believe he was not adequately trained or competent. These determinations would then inform whether the discretion to impose a banning order was enlivened and, if so, the appropriate scope and duration of that order.

The Tribunal found that Mr Sahai was involved in a contravention of credit legislation by another person, specifically his brother Shiv and his niece Astna, through his agreement to complete loan applications for clients of Astna's business, Absolute Finance Pty Ltd. This involvement occurred despite Mr Sahai having been advised to distance himself from his brother's business practices following Shiv's prior banning by ASIC for falsifying documents. The Tribunal also noted Mr Sahai's grossly improper conduct as a justice of the peace, where he appeared prepared to witness statutory declarations without properly verifying the declarants' identities or ensuring the declarations were made truthfully.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal was satisfied that the discretion to ban Mr Sahai was enlivened. The Tribunal concluded that a seven-year banning order was appropriate and proportionate to reinforce the importance of complying with ASIC's banning orders and to protect consumers and the integrity of credit markets. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.