Australia's corporate regulator sued former financial adviser Osama Saad on Wednesday over about A$34 million (US$22 million) paid to his companies from entities linked to the First Guardian and Shield superannuation funds, whose 2024 collapse wiped roughly A$1 billion from the retirement savings of thousands of Australians. ASIC alleges the payments - commissions, profit-share deals and purported "infrastructure" fees - were routed around Australia's ban on conflicted adviser remuneration, the Australian Financial Review and Bloomberg wire reported.
The alleged machine ran on retail lead generation: about A$16.2 million flowed to marketing firms including Aus Super Compare and Just Sort My Super, which funnelled clients to advice businesses Venture Egg and Financial Services Group Australia. Those firms advised at least 2,312 clients between October 2022 and November 2023 to shift large shares of their super into First Guardian, Shield or both. Interprac-licensed representatives separately directed 6,843 clients and A$677 million into the funds - a failure that already earned Sequoia's former CEO a 10-year management ban last month. ASIC says at least A$6.7 million reached Saad, his associates or his personal spending, and that his own 2021 advice pushed 217 clients and A$25.3 million into First Guardian. "He steered the retirement savings of hundreds of Australians into high-risk investments" that later collapsed, ASIC Chairwoman Sarah Court said, Grafa reported.
ASIC's 17th case in the A$1B super saga
The suit is the 17th proceeding ASIC has filed over the two funds, with more action promised as the collapse sits among its 2026 enforcement priorities. The regulator is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, a ban on Saad providing financial services and his disqualification from managing corporations; his assets have been partly frozen since February 2025 and the allegations remain untested in court. It extends a heavy global enforcement stretch that just saw the US Treasury kill crypto wallet rules. For Malaysians, the contrast is EPF's centralised structure - members were never exposed to this kind of adviser-kickback pipeline, though private retirement scheme members should still ask how their adviser gets paid.