The corporate regulator pulled licences from 87 individuals and businesses in the twelve months to June 2026, marking the steepest enforcement rate across financial and credit services in five years. Another 36 people were disqualified from managing companies outright, half of them for the maximum five-year term allowed under law.
The numbers come from the regulator’s annual enforcement summary released this week, and they land alongside a separate record: $830 million in civil penalties and $644 million in customer refunds extracted through court action over the same period. Together, the two tracks point to the most active enforcement year the watchdog has run.
The enforcement breakdown
Of the 87 removals, the regulator acted against both financial services operators and credit providers. Financial services saw the bulk of the action, with restrictions or removals hitting the highest level in five years. Credit services accounted for 27 of the outcomes.
Sixty-one per cent of financial services enforcement ended in permanent banning orders or licence cancellations. For credit, that figure climbed to 89 per cent. In total, 77 permanent bans or cancellations were handed down, covering 31 individuals and 46 organisations. Another six people copped ten-year bans, and 31 received shorter-term restrictions.
Eighteen of the 36 director disqualifications lasted the full five years, the maximum the regulator can impose administratively without going to court.
Why the shift to administrative action
The regulator has leaned harder on administrative powers over the past year, using licence cancellations and director disqualifications to move faster than court proceedings allow. These tools let the watchdog act on its own authority without waiting for a judge, cutting the time it takes to pull someone out of the market from years to months.
The regulator’s chair said administrative powers remain the most effective way to intervene quickly when misconduct surfaces, and the agency plans to maintain this approach going forward.
The emphasis on speed matters because the longer someone operates while under investigation, the more clients or investors can be affected. A court case might deliver a bigger headline penalty, but an administrative ban stops the damage immediately.
What drove the bans
The enforcement outcomes covered a range of misconduct, from fraud and fund misappropriation to false documentation and compliance failures. Several high-profile cases illustrate the severity.
One operator received a permanent ban after fraud convictions linked to the dishonest transfer of almost $90,000 from former clients. Another permanent ban followed findings that an adviser misappropriated client funds and submitted false documents. A former property director in Victoria copped the maximum five-year disqualification after company collapses left creditors facing substantial losses.
Fifteen advisers connected to two troubled investment funds were banned over the financial year, with further action pursued against licensees and responsible managers tied to the schemes.
The catch
- 61% of financial services enforcement outcomes ended in permanent removal
- 89% of credit enforcement outcomes resulted in permanent bans or cancellations
- 18 of 36 director disqualifications lasted the maximum five years
- These are administrative actions, meaning the regulator acted without court proceedings
What this means for operators still licensed
The enforcement surge signals stricter scrutiny across the board, not just for those already under investigation. The regulator has flagged mortgage broker conduct as a specific focus area for 2026, and the removal rate suggests the watchdog is moving faster on complaints and audit findings than it did in previous years.
For brokers, advisers and credit providers still operating, the practical implication is tighter compliance expectations and less tolerance for documentation gaps or process shortcuts. The regulator is using administrative powers to act on findings that might previously have warranted a warning or undertaking, and the permanent ban rate shows it’s not defaulting to second chances.
Compliant operators may face more frequent audits or deeper scrutiny during licence renewals, as the regulator works to identify issues before they escalate. The message is clear: gaps that were overlooked in the past may not be overlooked now.
How consumers can check licensing status
Anyone working with a broker, adviser or lender can verify their licensing status through the regulator’s online registers. The financial adviser register and credit licensee register both show current licences, conditions and any enforcement actions.
Checking is straightforward: search by name or Australian Business Number, and the register will show whether the licence is active, suspended or cancelled. If a ban or restriction has been imposed, the register lists the reason and the timeframe.
The register also shows conditions attached to a licence, which can signal previous compliance issues or operational restrictions the regulator has imposed. If a licensee has multiple conditions or a history of undertakings, that’s worth factoring into your decision.
For anyone in the middle of a transaction or advice engagement, it’s worth checking the register before signing documents or transferring funds. A licence can be cancelled or suspended mid-engagement if the regulator uncovers new evidence, and consumers are rarely notified until after the fact.
The pressure building on mortgage brokers specifically
The regulator’s 2026 enforcement agenda named mortgage broker conduct as a priority area, and the removal numbers suggest that focus is already playing out. Credit services accounted for 27 of the 87 enforcement outcomes, and the permanent ban rate for credit operators hit 89 per cent, higher than the financial services figure.
The scrutiny reflects ongoing concerns about broker incentives, particularly around loan structures that maximise commission rather than suit the borrower’s circumstances. The regulator has previously flagged practices like encouraging borrowers to take larger loans, steering clients toward products with higher upfront commissions, or failing to assess serviceability properly.
For brokers, the practical risk is that conduct previously treated as poor practice may now trigger licence action. The shift from warnings to permanent bans means compliance gaps carry steeper consequences, and the speed of administrative action means there’s less time to correct issues before enforcement lands.
What to track over the next six months
The regulator’s enforcement approach is unlikely to ease in the short term. The agency has committed to maintaining its use of administrative powers, and the removal rate suggests it has the pipeline and resources to sustain this pace.
Three things worth watching: the rate of mortgage broker-specific enforcement outcomes, whether the permanent ban rate holds or climbs further, and any changes to the types of conduct triggering removal. If the regulator starts pulling licences for issues that were previously handled with enforceable undertakings, that will signal an even tighter compliance environment.
For consumers, the main practical check is verifying licensing status before committing to a transaction. For operators, the focus is documentation and process discipline, because the regulator is acting faster on audit findings than it has in the past.
Stay informed with the latest policy shifts and enforcement trends, subscribe to the Australian Property Review newsletter for weekly analysis delivered to your inbox.
General info, not financial advice.
