CA ANZ suspends member following ASIC disqualification

The financial regulator said its compliance action had been broadly spurred by breaches in professional obligations relating to auditing and assurance standards, independence requirements, professional development requirements and the need to hold professional indemnity insurance.

Action was also taken against auditors who failed to comply with annual statements or had ceased to have the practical experience necessary to carry out SMSF audits.

Fak became a member of CA ANZ in 2013, and obtained a certificate of public practice in 2018, CA ANZ disciplinary documents read.

At some point after March 2025, CA ANZ became aware that Fak had been disqualified by ASIC as an SMSF auditor, and the accounting body’s professional conduct committee (PCC) launched an investigation into him.

In May, June and July 2025, PCC sent several emails and letters to his email and residential addresses, but did not receive any response from him.

As such, the PCC proceeded with a hearing in the absence of Fak. The tribunal considered his ASIC disqualification to be a serious matter.

While ASIC had not disclosed specific details of Fak’s offending, the PCC determined that the disqualification was enough to necessitate a 5-year suspension from CA ANZ, to be revoked if ASIC opted to reverse his disqualification. It also ordered him to pay the full costs of the PCC’s investigation, totalling $9,247.

To have been disqualified as an auditor, the PCC noted that Fak must have failed to properly perform his duties as an SMSF auditor. It also constituted an "adverse or unfavourable binding determination,” in breach of CA ANZ’s By-Law 40.9(a)(vii) (2024 Version). 

This by-law stipulated that a member of CA ANZ would be found to have committed an offence if they were the subject of any “adverse or unfavourable binding” by any body empowered to make such determinations.

“The Tribunal noted it only had to be satisfied that the Member was subject of an adverse or unfavourable binding determination about the Member’s professional or business conduct, competence or integrity, not the underlying reasons or the correctness of those findings,” CA ANZ’s disciplinary documents read.

“The evidence provided satisfied the Tribunal such a determination was made.”