CAR LOANS
All finance quotes are provided free (via our secure server) and without obligation. We respect your privacy.
Initially under interim orders since August 2020, Mawhinney now faces a total 20-year ban. He announced plans to appeal, disputing the decision and emphasising that he successfully countered most allegations, including defeating 57 out of 90 claims of misleading conduct. Mawhinney argues that prior to the enforcement actions by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Mayfair's clients experienced no defaults, with timely fulfilment of principal and interest payments.
Despite Mawhinney's assurances of aiming to restore client assets, Justice Catherine Button highlighted an absence of a genuine plan to meet investor obligations, noting his strategy leaned heavily on raising further funds. She further stated that Mawhinney's operations subjected investors to substantial loss risks, exacerbated by proactive efforts to raise investments despite significant financial turmoil within the group.
The Federal Court's findings from July suggest Mawhinney's involvement in legal breaches associated with Mayfair 101 Group's operations. The group sought substantial debt investment to fund projects like a Dunk Island redevelopment in Queensland, which, alongside around 300 property acquisitions at Mission Beach, aimed at an over $200 million purchase objective. However, the court highlighted the aggressive acquisition strategy and insufficient incoming capital, with the situation worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court believes that without restraint, Mawhinney's financial service operations would continue on a "financially reckless" trajectory, posing significant risks of public loss. The ruling comes amid claims from a segment of Mayfair investors blaming ASIC's legal actions for the downfall of investment schemes, which they describe as a "national disgrace."
Looking forward, Mawhinney's appeal may set future precedents in regulatory actions within Australia's finance sector, spotlighting the delicate balance between investor protection and entrepreneurial ventures. The decision underscores the courts' commitment to curbing practices seen as detrimental to investment integrity and financial stability.
Published:Tuesday, 9th Sep 2025
Source: Paige Estritori
