ASIC Is Now Suing Super Funds — Not Just Warning Them. What Members Can Claim in 2026

By /

Evidence-backed. Sourced from ASIC’s 2025 Annual Report (media release 25-231MR), ASIC’s 2025 and 2026 enforcement priorities, ASIC’s 2025–26 Corporate Plan, AFCA’s superannuation publications, and GT Law and Hall Wilcox enforcement commentary. General information only — not legal advice. Super complaints outcomes depend on individual circumstances; consult a qualified financial complaints solicitor or registered financial adviser before lodging formal claims. Last updated: June 2026.

⚡ Key Takeaways

  • ASIC’s published enforcement priorities for 2025 and 2026 name “misconduct exploiting superannuation savings” and “member services failures in the superannuation sector” as explicit targets — not general financial services enforcement, but specific conduct inside the super system. This is a shift from warning funds to pursuing them in court. [1][5]
  • In 2024–25, ASIC delivered a 50% increase in investigations, nearly 20% more civil enforcement proceedings, and secured $104.1 million in civil penalties and $16.8 million in criminal fines. Major super-related actions included enforcement against Cbus and AustralianSuper for death-benefit handling failures and the $11.03 million Federal Court penalty against DOD Bookkeeping (formerly Equiti Financial Services) for conflicted property scheme advice tied to SMSFs. [2][6]
  • ASIC’s 2026 enforcement priorities shift from scam enforcement to “holding super trustees accountable for member services failures” — specifically including delayed death benefit and TPD payments, bungled internal dispute resolution, and failures in account consolidation and disability claims. Funds that have received ASIC warnings since 2024 are now facing the prospect of being the next enforcement action. [7][8]
  • AFCA complaints about super have no dollar cap on compensation. If your fund mishandles a death benefit, drags out a TPD claim, or provided misleading advice tied to a property scheme, AFCA can vary or replace the trustee’s decision to the extent necessary to fix the unfairness. ASIC’s enforcement record now provides concrete examples you can cite to increase the pressure on your fund to settle rather than fight. [4][2]
  • For members who were pushed into SMSFs or leveraged property schemes through conflicted or misleading advice since about 2019, ASIC’s recent enforcement trajectory — and AFCA’s data showing 40% of Compensation Scheme of Last Resort claims relate to SMSF investment and financial advice — makes this a live compensation opportunity worth investigating. [10][4]

ASIC Is Now Suing Super Funds — Not Just Warning Them. What Members Can Claim in 2026

By The Fine Print editorial team  |  Last updated: June 2026  |  13 min read  |  ⚠️ Not financial advice

ASIC has quietly shifted from warning super funds to suing them — not just for dodgy advice, but for dragging their feet on death benefits, bungling complaints and letting property schemes raid members’ retirement savings. In 2024–25, ASIC increased its investigations by 50%, secured $104 million in civil penalties, and took enforcement action against major super funds including Cbus and AustralianSuper for death-benefit handling failures. An $11 million Federal Court penalty was imposed on a property-scheme advisory firm that pushed clients into conflicted SMSF arrangements. And ASIC’s 2026 priorities make clear the pressure isn’t easing — it’s shifting from scams to trustee accountability for the day-to-day failures that ordinary members experience: slow claims, poor complaint handling, and misleading product disclosure. This guide explains what changed, what you can now realistically complain about, and how to use ASIC’s enforcement posture to get your fund to actually fix things.

📋 What’s in This Guide

What Changed in 2024–26 — ASIC’s Enforcement Shift

ASIC’s stated enforcement priorities (2025 and 2026):

  • 2025: “Misconduct exploiting superannuation savings” and “Member services failures in the superannuation sector” listed at the top of ASIC’s enforcement priorities — not as a sub-category of general financial services, but as a named and explicit focus. [1][5]
  • 2026: ASIC’s priorities shift to “holding super trustees accountable for member services failures” — reflecting the view that after years of warnings, funds must now have fixed their internal processes. Those that haven’t are the enforcement targets. [7][8]
  • ASIC’s 2025–26 Corporate Plan explicitly states it will hold super trustees and their directors to the same standards as large listed company boards on governance, conflicts and member outcomes. [8]

What the 2024–25 numbers show:

  • 50% increase in investigations compared to prior year. [2]
  • Nearly 20% more new civil enforcement proceedings. [2]
  • $104.1 million in civil penalties and $16.8 million in criminal fines secured — including major super-related actions. [2]
  • $11.03 million Federal Court penalty (April 2025) against DOD Bookkeeping Pty Ltd (formerly Equiti Financial Services) for conflicted remuneration and inappropriate SMSF/property advice; AFSL cancelled November 2024. [2][6]
  • ASIC took down 6,900+ investment scam and phishing websites, many targeting retirees and SMSF trustees. [2]
  • Enforcement actions against Cbus and AustralianSuper for death-benefit handling failures — the first time major funds faced court action specifically for how they administered death claims. [2][6]

What ASIC already had — the post-Royal Commission toolkit:

  • Civil penalty provisions for trustee misconduct, significantly expanded since the 2019 law changes post-Royal Commission. [5]
  • Design and distribution obligations (DDO) — requiring trustees to ensure products are designed for and distributed to appropriate member groups. [8]
  • Misleading and deceptive conduct laws applied directly to super fund marketing and disclosure, including ESG/ethical claims. [1][3]
  • ASIC Report 806 “Taking Ownership of Death Benefits” — a formal ASIC publication setting out the standard trustees must meet in handling death benefit claims, now underpinning enforcement action. [2]

Four Ways ASIC’s New Posture Helps Ordinary Members

1. Death benefits, TPD and disability claims — you now have enforcement precedent behind you

ASIC’s explicit focus on “member services failures” since 2024 directly targets the most common grievances super members have: a death benefit claim that sits unresolved for months, a TPD application that gets knocked back without explanation, a disability claim where the fund seems to apply every possible reason to delay. These are not obscure edge cases — they are the kind of failures that leave grieving families without money they’re legally entitled to and disabled workers in financial limbo. The enforcement actions against Cbus and AustralianSuper in 2024–25 for death-benefit handling failures sent a clear message to every trustee board in the country: this is now court territory, not just APRA data territory. ASIC Report 806 “Taking Ownership of Death Benefits” sets out in detail what trustees must do — and what ASIC will measure them against. For a member with an unresolved death or TPD claim, the ability to reference this enforcement history in a formal complaint is real leverage that didn’t exist in the same way three years ago. [2][6][8]

2. Conflicted property advice and SMSF schemes — a live compensation pathway

The DOD Bookkeeping case illustrates a pattern ASIC has explicitly flagged as a priority: advisers and promoters who push clients into SMSFs specifically to funnel their retirement savings into related-party property deals or high-fee platforms, where the adviser receives commissions or bonuses tied to the client’s investment decisions. The court found DOD advisers provided cookie-cutter advice that ignored clients’ actual circumstances while the firm received bonuses linked to property purchases through a related entity. For members who were pushed into an SMSF since approximately 2019 through advice that seems to fit this pattern — advice that downplayed risks, didn’t address your specific situation, or came from someone with a financial interest in where you invested — ASIC’s enforcement record creates a concrete reference point. AFCA complaints involving this type of misconduct are now supported by live precedent from the Federal Court. AFCA has no dollar cap on super compensation, and can vary or replace trustee decisions. Whether a specific member has a viable claim depends on their circumstances, but the pathway is clearer now than it’s ever been. [2][4][6]

3. Greenwashing and misleading ESG claims — you can challenge what you were sold

ASIC’s ongoing enforcement priority on “greenwashing and misleading conduct involving ESG claims” applies directly to super funds that market themselves as ethical, sustainable or fossil-fuel-free while holding investments that contradict those claims. If you selected a super option specifically because its PDS, marketing materials or fund communications told you it excluded fossil fuels, coal mining, weapons or gambling — and you’ve since discovered the fund continues to hold those investments — ASIC’s enforcement posture gives you a formal basis for a complaint. The misleading conduct laws don’t require you to prove you lost money on the investment itself; they require the fund’s public claims to be accurate and not misleading. ASIC has already taken action against managed funds for greenwashing in the broader market. Super funds with aggressive ESG marketing are now on clear notice that the same standard applies to them. [1][3][8]

4. AFCA now has more ammunition — and your fund has more to lose

AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority) is the external dispute resolution scheme for super complaints. It’s free for members, has no dollar cap on compensation for super decisions, and can vary or set aside a trustee’s decision if it finds that decision was unfair or unreasonable. For most of AFCA’s existence, the practical leverage a member had was limited to their individual complaint. What ASIC’s enforcement posture adds is context: when an AFCA complaint references a type of misconduct that ASIC has explicitly flagged as an enforcement priority — delayed death benefits, conflicted investment advice, poor complaint handling — the fund’s risk calculation changes. Settling an AFCA complaint is much cheaper than being the next ASIC test case. The ability to write to your fund’s internal complaints team, reference the Cbus or AustralianSuper enforcement action, and note that you’re prepared to escalate to AFCA is more powerful today than the same letter would have been in 2022. AFCA’s own data shows that 40% of claims under the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort relate to SMSF investment and financial advice — a category ASIC is actively pursuing. [4][10][2]

The 2023–2026 Regulatory and Scandal Timeline

  • 2019: Banking Royal Commission recommendations implemented — civil penalty provisions for super trustee misconduct significantly expanded. ASIC’s enforcement toolkit materially strengthened. [5]
  • 2023–24: ASIC uses expanded powers but primarily builds enforcement pipeline. APRA simultaneously expands super expense and investment data collection, giving ASIC richer material to spot suspicious spending or conflicts. [5][9]
  • 2024: ASIC enforcement priorities explicitly name super misconduct and member services failures. ASIC takes down thousands of scam websites targeting retirees. AFCA reports 40% of CSLR claims relate to SMSF investment advice. [1][10]
  • November 2024: ASIC cancels DOD Bookkeeping’s (Equiti Financial Services) AFSL for conflicted property scheme advice. [2]
  • 2024–25: Enforcement actions against Cbus and AustralianSuper for death-benefit handling failures — first time major funds face court action for member services failures. [2][6]
  • April 2025: Federal Court imposes $11.03 million penalty on DOD Bookkeeping for conflicted SMSF/property advice. 50% increase in ASIC investigations; $104.1M civil penalties and $16.8M criminal fines. [2]
  • 2026: ASIC’s enforcement priorities shift from scam prevention to “holding super trustees accountable for member services failures.” Industry commentary notes ASIC is treating trustee directors to the same standard as ASX-listed company boards. [7][8]

✅ Your Three-Step Action Plan

Action 1: Escalate serious super problems to AFCA — with ASIC’s posture at your back

If your fund has mishandled a death benefit, TPD or income protection claim; dragged its feet on a rollover or internal complaint; or provided or recommended a clearly unsuitable investment structure — and you’re not satisfied after using the fund’s internal dispute resolution process — your next step is AFCA. The process is straightforward: lodge a complaint online at afca.org.au. AFCA is free for members, has no dollar cap on compensation for super decisions, and can vary or replace the trustee’s decision to the extent necessary to fix unfairness or unreasonableness. When writing your complaint, include specific dates — when you submitted a claim, when you followed up, what the fund said, how long you’ve been waiting. Include copies of any correspondence with the fund. Reference the type of conduct ASIC has specifically targeted: “member services failures in the superannuation sector” (the exact language from ASIC’s 2025 and 2026 priorities). Where relevant — for death benefits especially — note that ASIC’s enforcement actions in 2024–25 against major funds for similar conduct make clear this is conduct ASIC considers serious. This framing puts the fund on notice that an AFCA complaint isn’t just a member dispute — it’s potential regulatory exposure. [4][2][7]

Action 2: Use ASIC’s priorities and enforcement examples to frame your complaint

When you write to your fund’s internal complaints team or AFCA, matching your specific problem to the categories of misconduct ASIC has publicly prioritised increases the seriousness with which your complaint is treated. For death benefit and TPD claim delays: reference ASIC Report 806 “Taking Ownership of Death Benefits” and note that ASIC has taken enforcement action against major funds — including AustralianSuper and Cbus — specifically for this type of failure. For conflicted or property-scheme-linked advice: reference the DOD Bookkeeping Federal Court case ($11.03M penalty, April 2025) and ASIC’s stated focus on “misconduct exploiting superannuation savings.” For misleading ESG claims: reference ASIC’s ongoing enforcement priority on greenwashing and misleading conduct under the Corporations Act and ASIC Act. You don’t need to be a lawyer to do this — you’re pointing to publicly available ASIC media releases and priority statements. The effect is to show the fund that your complaint is in a category where ASIC is already watching, and that defending it at AFCA creates public record of exactly the conduct ASIC is targeting. Most funds would rather settle than generate that record. [1][2][3][4]

Action 3: Audit any advice or schemes that moved your super since 2019

If, since approximately 2019, you were moved into an SMSF primarily to buy one or two investment properties; borrowed heavily inside your super; invested in a complex managed account, MDA or high-fee platform through a generic “strategy session”; or rolled your super into a product based on advice that seemed to focus more on the product than on your situation — pull out the Statements of Advice, PDSs and any marketing material you received. Ask two questions. First: did the advice actually address your personal circumstances, risk profile and financial goals, or did it read like a script that would have been the same for any client? Second: were any financial relationships between the adviser and the recommended product or investment disclosed — commissions, referral fees, bonuses, or related-party arrangements? If the answers raise concerns, speak to a qualified financial complaints solicitor or contact a free legal service (such as a Community Legal Centre) for an initial view on whether you have a viable AFCA complaint or damages claim. AFCA’s CSLR data showing 40% of claims relate to SMSF investment and financial advice confirms this category of complaint is active and real — not just theoretical. The SOA in your files is the most important document you have. [4][10][2]

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

What are ASIC’s enforcement priorities for super in 2026?

“Holding super trustees accountable for member services failures” — building on 2025’s explicit naming of “misconduct exploiting superannuation savings” and “member services failures.” Specific targets: delayed death/TPD claims, bungled complaints, greenwashing, and high-risk SMSF schemes. [7][8][1]

How do I complain to AFCA about my super fund?

Use your fund’s internal dispute resolution first (allow 45 days). If unsatisfied, lodge at afca.org.au — free, no dollar cap, can vary trustee decisions. Include dates, correspondence, and reference the specific ASIC enforcement priority matching your complaint. [4]

What was the DOD Bookkeeping / Equiti case about?

April 2025: $11.03M Federal Court penalty for conflicted SMSF property-scheme advice — advisers received bonuses linked to clients buying property through a related entity, with cookie-cutter advice that ignored client circumstances. AFSL cancelled November 2024. Benchmark case for SMSF property scheme complaints. [2][6]

What is ASIC Report 806?

“Taking Ownership of Death Benefits” — ASIC’s formal publication setting the standard for how trustees must handle death benefit claims. It underpins the 2024–25 enforcement actions against Cbus and AustralianSuper and is the reference document for any death benefit complaint. [2][8]

Can I complain about my fund’s ESG or ethical claims?

Yes. ASIC’s greenwashing enforcement applies to super funds. If you selected a product based on ESG marketing and the fund holds investments that contradict those claims, that’s a potential misleading conduct complaint — to the fund, AFCA, or reported to ASIC directly. [1][3]

⚖️ The Fine Print Verdict

ASIC has spent several years building its super enforcement capability. From 2024 onwards, it started using it. The 50% jump in investigations, the $11 million property-scheme penalty, the enforcement actions against major funds for death-benefit failures — these are not isolated events. They’re the product of a regulator that has explicitly named super misconduct as a priority and is now willing to take funds and advisers to court to make the point. For ordinary members, this changes the power balance. An AFCA complaint that references the Cbus enforcement action, ASIC Report 806, or the DOD property-scheme case is a different document from one that doesn’t. Funds and their legal teams know what ASIC is targeting. A complaint that lands squarely in an enforcement priority category carries a real settlement incentive that didn’t exist three years ago. You don’t need to be a lawyer or know the legislation in detail. You need to know what ASIC has said publicly, apply it to your situation, and be willing to follow through to AFCA if the fund doesn’t respond properly. The tools are there. Use them.

👉 If your fund has delayed a death benefit, TPD claim or complaint resolution — start the internal dispute process in writing today, set a 45-day clock, and prepare an AFCA complaint to follow if the response is inadequate.

📬 Want the Fine Print — Straight to Your Inbox?

Plain-English breakdowns of Australian money news every week — no jargon, no spam.
🔔 Subscribe Free

📚 Sources & References

  1. Optima Partners, “ASIC’s 2025 enforcement priorities — a compliance checklist,” optimapartners.net.au
  2. ASIC, “ASIC’s annual report reveals strong growth in enforcement action,” asic.gov.au (25-231MR, 2025)
  3. Bell Rock Advisory, “ASIC enforcement priorities 2025,” bellrockadvisory.com
  4. AFCA, “About AFCA publications superannuation advice,” afca.org.au
  5. ASIC, “ASIC enforcement priorities,” asic.gov.au
  6. ClearDocs, “Super Under Siege — ASIC flags spike in misconduct in latest annual report,” cleardocs.com
  7. Hall and Wilcox, “ASIC announces 2026 enforcement priorities,” hallandwilcox.com.au
  8. ASIC, “Corporate Plan 2025–26,” asic.gov.au (published August 2025)
  9. Financial Standard, “ASIC escalates super fund enforcement in 2025,” financialstandard.com.au
  10. SMSF Magazine, “SMSF complaints to AFCA fall,” smsmagazine.com.au (October 2024)
  11. GT Law, “ASIC 2025 enforcement priorities — spotlight on superannuation sector,” gtlaw.com.au
  12. Treasury, FOI 4119, treasury.gov.au (January 2026)

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Whether a specific complaint to AFCA or legal claim will succeed depends on individual circumstances. Before lodging formal complaints or pursuing compensation, consult a qualified financial complaints solicitor or contact a Community Legal Centre for a preliminary assessment. Information is current as at June 2026, based on ASIC official publications, AFCA guidance and publicly available enforcement records. The Fine Print 🇦🇺 is not affiliated with ASIC, AFCA or any fund mentioned in this article.

Tweet
Share
Pin
Share
0 Shares

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top

Privacy Policy