The (ASIC) announced this Monday that it has imposed additional conditions on Societe Generale Securities Australia Pty Ltd’s Australian financial services (AFS) licence.
The new conditions mean that Societe General Securities Australia must appoint an independent expert to assess and test its controls, systems and processes. They will be in charge of ensuring the company is in compliance with client money requirements of the Corporations Act 2001.
The independent expert will be responsible for identifying any deficiencies within the company regarding compliance, and, if found, set out any remedial action in a report provided to both ASIC and Societe General Securities Australia.
“The additional conditions also require SGSAPL to provide ASIC with attestations from a qualified SGSAPL senior executive and a SGSAPL board member that confirm all remedial actions recommended by the independent expert have been adopted and implemented,” the regulator said today in its statement.
If the said attestations are not provided, must stop onboarding new clients, if the onboarding involves the firm receiving client money from the client, and refrain from charging brokerage fees to any futures transactions it executes.
ASIC charges SocGen with Corporations Act violations
The additional conditions have been implemented to ensure compliance with client money regulations, the regulator said in its statement today, after SocGen announced to the authority that it had deposited client money into unauthorised bank accounts between December 2014 and September 2018.
Societe Generale Securities Australia is a financial services provider in equity derivative sales, prime services, and clearing. It also offers over the counter (OTC) derivatives and ASX24 futures and options, among other financial products. Its clients are wholesale clients, which means – financial institutions, hedge funds, asset managers, and corporate clients.
As , in March the securities firm appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court in Sydney on criminal charges. In particular, the company was charged with two counts of failing to pay client money into segregated authorized bank accounts and two counts of failing to comply with requirements relating to a client money bank account.