AAT upholds ASIC bans of client advisers for trading in 'MINI' warrants (ASIC, 2017)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (asic-17-425mr-matched-orders-2017) by email

In 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed ASIC's three-year bans on former adviser Tony Davidof and former Credit Suisse employee Philip McLean over pre-arranged back-to-back trades in Credit Suisse MINI warrants that shifted profit or loss from earlier futures trades.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission announced this matter on December 11, 2017 as release 17-425MR. The respondents named are Tony Davidof and Philip McLean (2 individuals, 0 entities).

ASIC's investigation found that in 2013 the two agreed price, volume and timing of back-to-back MINI warrant trades on the ASX, in each case after the Credit Suisse employee had traded SPI futures on Davidof's behalf and produced a loss (February) or profit (June) for him. The Tribunal accepted that the trades were designed only to transfer that profit or loss, not to respond to supply and demand.

This library tags the matter as matched orders, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The Tribunal affirmed a three-year ban on each man. No monetary penalty is recorded.

The record reflects the Tribunal's decision on review of ASIC's banning orders, not a court conviction.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2017-12-11 ASIC media release

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• ASIC media release

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Same matter

The library links these 2 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.