🇦🇺Australia

Strafzahlungen und Rückerstattungen wegen falsch berechneter oder nicht offengelegter Gebühren

Updated: Feb 20263 verified sources

Definition

In Australia, extensive ASIC enforcement and Royal Commission findings have highlighted systemic failures in advice fee charging and disclosure, notably ‘fee-for-no-service’ and mischarged ongoing advice fees. While the provided sources focus on consumer-facing cost guidance and pricing structures, they make clear that fees can include initial SOA fees (~AUD 3,500–6,000), implementation fees (~AUD 1,500) and ongoing fees (~AUD 2,000–4,700 p.a.), as well as asset-based percentages and hourly rates.[3][4][6] When these fees are calculated or applied incorrectly (e.g. charging AUM fees on non-advised assets; continuing to charge ongoing fees after services cease; or failing to obtain required annual fee consents), firms face remediation obligations that can run into millions across large books. Public ASIC reports (outside the provided extracts) have documented industry-wide remediation exceeding AUD 1.86 billion for advice-related fee misconduct; this is a broader industry data point, not drawn from the listed URLs. At practice level, if a licensee identifies that 5% of 1,000 ongoing-fee clients (average ongoing fee AUD 4,700) were overcharged for two years, remediation including interest could be around AUD 470,000 (0.05 × 1,000 × 4,700 × 2). This is a logic-based calculation anchored to typical fee levels from MoneySmart and industry guides. In addition to client compensation, firms incur investigation, audit and legal costs, and face the risk of civil penalties under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key Findings

Financial Impact: Quantified (logic-based at firm level, supported by industry precedent): Using typical ongoing fees of ~AUD 4,700 p.a. per client[3] and a book of 1,000 clients, overcharging 5% of clients for two years results in ~AUD 470,000 remediation (refund of AUD 4,700 × 0.05 × 1,000 × 2), excluding legal and audit costs.
Frequency: Episodic but high impact; arises during ASIC reviews, internal audits, licensee monitoring or complaint escalations, often covering multiple years of historical fees.
Root Cause: Inadequate linkage between service delivery and billing (charging when no service is provided); lack of automated controls around annual consent and ongoing fee arrangements; complex, manually maintained fee schedules; insufficient reconciliation between platform deductions and client-authorised fees.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian licensees and advice firms 🇦🇺 have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation for fee-for-no-service and mischarged advice fees. Automated and auditable fee calculation and billing can prevent future compensation costs and enforcement risk.