ASIC’s enforcement activity continues to intensify, with the regulator making it clear that it expects stronger governance, more effective compliance frameworks, and earlier intervention where risks are identified. For financial advice practices, ASIC’s enforcement priorities are not abstract policy statements. They are a practical guide to where scrutiny is most likely to be applied and where weaknesses are most often exposed.
Recent enforcement outcomes show that ASIC’s focus is increasingly directed toward conduct that causes real consumer harm, particularly where systemic issues persist over time. This includes failures in governance, inadequate supervision, poor risk management, and weaknesses in the implementation of compliance obligations in practice.
One of the consistent themes in ASIC’s enforcement work is the expectation that licensees move beyond relying solely on documented policies. While policies and procedures remain essential, ASIC has been clear that they must be supported by evidence that they are actively applied, monitored, and reviewed. In many enforcement matters, the underlying issue has not been the absence of a framework, but the failure to use it effectively.
ASIC has also placed increasing emphasis on how licensees identify and address emerging risks. This includes areas such as private credit arrangements, complex or higher‑risk products, and business models that place pressure on vulnerable consumers. Where risks are known but not adequately addressed, ASIC has shown a willingness to escalate its response.
For advice practices, this means that compliance cannot be treated as a periodic exercise. Ongoing monitoring, meaningful internal reviews, and clear escalation pathways are critical. ASIC has demonstrated that it expects issues to be identified and managed before they result in consumer detriment, not after.
Another important aspect of ASIC’s enforcement approach is its focus on accountability. ASIC has repeatedly highlighted the role of boards, responsible managers, and senior leadership in setting the tone for compliance and ensuring that frameworks are effective. Where governance structures exist in name only, or where responsibility is unclear, enforcement risk increases significantly.
Operational resilience also continues to feature prominently in ASIC’s work. This includes oversight of third‑party service providers, management of operational risks, and ensuring that businesses have appropriate systems and controls in place to support their licensed activities. Weaknesses in these areas can quickly become compliance issues, particularly where they impact client outcomes or data security.
From a practical perspective, ASIC’s enforcement priorities reinforce the value of proactive compliance management. Regular internal audits, independent reviews, and robust compliance reporting provide licensees with early visibility of issues and allow corrective action to be taken before regulatory intervention becomes necessary.
For advisers and compliance teams, the key takeaway is that ASIC’s priorities should be treated as a roadmap rather than a warning. Understanding where the regulator is focusing its attention allows practices to assess their own frameworks with greater clarity and strengthen areas most likely to attract scrutiny.
In an environment where enforcement activity is increasing and expectations are evolving, practices that invest in strong governance, clear accountability, and effective compliance oversight are better positioned to manage risk and maintain regulatory confidence.
Call to action
ASIC’s priorities signal where scrutiny is most likely to land. Read the full article to understand the conduct and systems ASIC expects advisers to get right now. For practical support reviewing your governance and compliance framework, contact AIC Solutions on 07 3251 2481 or [email protected].
References
ASIC – ASIC enforcement priorities
ASIC – Media release: ASIC announces 2026 enforcement priorities (25-273MR)
ASIC – Speech: The power and purpose of enforcement (Sarah Court)
