Username:
Password:
Forgot Password?

August - Professional Conduct Tribunals
Print this Article Print this Article
Email this Article

7 August 2007 
 
Paul James Hullin CA of Victoria 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Hullin was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:

    By-law 40(e), in that on 21 June 2004 a delegate of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, having determined that in relation to his involvement in the affairs of a superannuation fund he had contravened the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 on more than one occasion, disqualified him from being a trustee, investment manager or custodian or a responsible officer of a trustee, investment manager or custodian of a superannuation entity. 
     
  1. By-law 40(b), in that on 22 March 2007 in the County Court of Victoria, having previously pleaded guilty to a charge:
    2. that at Melbourne and elsewhere in the State of Victoria, between February 2000 and December 2000, he intentionally and intending to deceive someone, namely the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, entered into and carried out, a scheme with the intention that: 
     
    a) The scheme would result or be likely to result, in an artificial reduction in the market value ratio of a superannuation fund’s (“the Fund”) in-house assets; and 
     
    b) That artificial reduction would avoid the application of a provision of Part 8 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (“the Act”) to the Fund 
     
    in contravention of subsection 85(1) of the Act, which by reason of s193 of the Act is a civil penalty provision and which by reason of the matters alleged herein and s202 of the Act constitutes an offence
    Mr Hullin had a conviction recorded against him and was fined $7,000.
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Hullin be severely reprimanded and required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action. 
 
 
 
7 August 2007 
 
Robert France Elliott FCA of Victoria 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Elliott was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:
  1. By-law 40(e), in that on 21 June 2004 a delegate of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, having determined that in relation to his involvement in the affairs of a superannuation fund he had:
    2. (a) contravened the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 on more than one occasion; and 
     
    (b) failed to carry out or perform the duties of an auditor under the said Act or the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994, 
     
    disqualified him from being 
     
    (a) a trustee, investment manager or custodian or a responsible officer of a trustee, investment manager or custodian of a superannuation entity; and 
     
    (b) an approved auditor for the purposes of the Act, 
     
    and referred his conduct to his professional association.
  2. By-law 40(b), in that on 21 July 2006 in the Magistrates Court at Melbourne he pleaded guilty to a charge:
    3.  
     
    that at Melbourne and elsewhere in the State of Victoria, between February 2000 and December 2000, he intentionally and intending to deceive someone, namely the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, entered into and carried out, a scheme with the intention that:
    (a) The scheme would result or be likely to result, in an artificial reduction in the market value ratio of a superannuation fund’s (“the Fund”) in-house assets; and 
     
    (b) That artificial reduction would avoid the application of a provision of Part 8 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (“the Act”) to the Fund 
     
    in contravention of subsection 85(1) of the Act, which by reason of s193 of the Act is a civil penalty provision and which by reason of the matters alleged herein and s202 of the Act constitutes an offence
    which resulted, following an appeal to the County Court of Victoria, in a conviction being recorded against Mr Elliott and him being fined $3,000.
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Elliott be severely reprimanded and required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action. 
 
 
 
7 August 2007 
 
Peter Russell Clements FCA of Victoria 
 
In his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Clements was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(b), in that on 22 November 2006 in the Melbourne Magistrates Court he was found to have contravened section 38(2) of the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic) and ordered on 23 November 2006, without conviction, to pay $5000 to the Court Fund and to be of good behaviour for a period of twelve months. 
 
The decision of the Tribunal was that no sanctions be imposed.