The Federal Court last week found in favour of ASIC against digital currency payments provider BPS Financial Pty Ltd (BPS) over its Qoin Wallet product. Justice Downes held that BPS:
The case is Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 457. In this article, we comment on the Court’s findings and the issues raised by BPS’ contravention of the Corporations Act.
ASIC’s victory in this case was largely based on the facts. On two crucial submissions, the Court disagreed with ASIC. First, the Court agreed with BPS on what constituted the non-cash payment (NCP) facility. Second, and possibly more importantly, the Court disagreed with ASIC’s interpretation of ‘on behalf of’, as that phrase is used in sections 9 (previously section 910A) and 916A of the Corporations Act.
This is the first time that the words ‘on behalf of’, as they are now used in sections 9 and 916A of the Corporations Act, have been the subject of judicial interpretation, even though these provisions have been in the legislation since 2001. Until this case, guidance on the meaning of these words in these statutory provisions was limited to ASIC policy and other case law (which acknowledged that the meaning of these words depends on the context in which they are used). The Court rejected ASIC’s submissions on these words having a more restricted meaning and application, and instead, held that they should be given a broader interpretation.
This decision is significant not so much because it is ASIC’s first court win against an NCP facility involving crypto, but more so because it provides important guidance on identifying the precise financial product that is an NCP facility and provides jurisprudence on the scope of the authorised representative exemption which should be taken into account when considering ASIC's policy on this issue.
A person who carries on a financial services business in Australia must hold an AFSL granted by ASIC authorising them to provide the relevant financial services, unless an exemption applies.[1] Exemptions from holding an AFSL include the following:
In 2021, ASIC released Information Sheet 225: Crypto-assets to provide guidance on how Australian financial services laws apply to crypto-assets. Providing financial product advice or dealing, in relation to a crypto-asset, may constitute the provision of financial services if the particular crypto-asset is a financial product.
While crypto-assets are not, in and of themselves, an established category of ‘financial product’ for the purposes of the Corporations Act, depending on the particular circumstances, a crypto-asset may fit into an existing category of financial product, such as a security (including a debenture), derivative, or an interest in a managed investment scheme.
A facility through which a person makes an NCP is also a financial product.[5] Generally, a person makes NCPs if they make payments, or cause payments to be made, otherwise than in the physical delivery of Australian or foreign currency.[6] A ‘facility’ is defined broadly and includes intangible property, an arrangement, or a combination thereof.[7]
Since January 2020, the Qoin Wallet App has been publicly available by BPS for download onto mobile devices. Upon completing the sign-up process for the Qoin Wallet App, users could proceed to create a Qoin Wallet. The Qoin Wallet is a separate software product that interacts with the Qoin Blockchain, a decentralised, distributed ledger that records all transactions using Qoin, the notional unit of exchange.
Through the Qoin Wallet, a person can:
There was no controversy that BPS’ Qoin business involved an NCP facility (which is a financial product), but BPS and ASIC disagreed as to what constituted the financial product.
ASIC submitted that the relevant financial product / the NCP facility was the entire Qoin Facility, which comprised of:
Justice Downes disagreed, holding that the relevant financial product was the Qoin Wallet alone. Her Honour’s reasons are set out at [107] – [112]:
BPS attempted to be covered under exemptions from holding an AFSL
From the outset, BPS knew that it was carrying on a financial services business, and it had sought to rely on both the authorised representative and the intermediary authorisation exemptions by entering into the following arrangements:
Authorised representative exemption – ‘on behalf of’
ASIC argued that the authorised representative exemption did not apply under the First Billzy Arrangement, the PNI Arrangement or the Second Billzy Arrangement because BPS did not provide the financial services ‘as representative of’ or ‘on behalf of’ Billzy or PNI.[9] It argued that, because BPS was the issuer of the Qoin NCP product, it was not providing financial services as agent of Billzy or PNI and that ‘as representative of’ and ‘on behalf of’ was effectively conflated with agency.
Justice Downes disagreed with ASIC. Her Honour reasoned that an AFSL holder is generally free to determine the circumstances in which it will be prepared to authorise a person to act on its behalf. Her Honour noted that section 916A(3) provided specific circumstances when an authorisation was void, and that the text of the legislation did not impose an additional rule that prevented a person from acting as an authorised representative of an AFSL holder in order for the authorised representative, itself, to issue the financial product lawfully.
The Court’s holding calls into question some of ASIC’s policy in ASIC Regulatory Guide 36. ASIC’s policy in ASIC Information Sheet 251 (INFO 251), on the other hand, may be able to be differentiated from the holding in this case, at least insofar as INFO 251 states that a trustee – which is subject to certain duties at law, including a duty to act personally and a duty not to improperly fetter its discretions – may not issue interests in a trust as an authorised representative of an AFSL holder.
Authorised representative exemption – authorisations
Notwithstanding the interpretation that permitted a broader application of an authorised representative exemption, BPS could not rely on the authorised representative exemption during the periods it was covered under the First Billzy Arrangement and the Second Billzy Arrangement. This was because the relevant authorised representative agreements did not, by their express terms, authorise BPS to either issue the Qoin NCP product or give general financial product advice about it.
Under those agreements, Billzy appointed BPS to ‘provide the Specified Financial Services’, which were defined as providing general advice on, and dealing in ‘non-cash payment facilities issued by [Billzy], limited to [Qoin or the Qoin Wallet etc.]’, where the meaning of ‘dealing’ had the meaning in section 766(1)(a) and was limited to arranging for a client to apply for, acquire or dispose of a financial product.
The problem was that:
Although the Court accepted that BPS and Billzy had intended that BPS be the issuer of the Qoin Wallet, the Court also held that there was no ‘clear error’ to be corrected in a readily apparent manner. At [171], Justice Downes cited Justice Gibbs who had observed that:[10]
If the words used are unambiguous the court must give effect to them, notwithstanding that the result may appear capricious or unreasonable, and notwithstanding that it may be guessed or suspected that the parties intended something different.
In contrast, the Court found that BPS could rely on the authorised representative exemption during the period it was covered under the PNI Arrangement because ‘by the plain terms’ of the agreement with PNI, BPS was authorised to issue the Qoin NCP product and give general financial product advice about it.
Intermediary authorisation exemption
Under the First Billzy Arrangement and Second Billzy Arrangement, the intermediary agreements provided that:
When read together with the authorised representative agreements, the Court found that the arrangement was, in fact, one where BPS would make offers to arrange the issue of the product by BPS.
The Court held that BPS could not rely on the intermediary authorisation exemption in section 911A(2)(b) because the language and intention of that provision supported the requirement that the product provider be a separate person from the person making the offers.
ASIC Act contraventions
Additionally, the Court held that BPS engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and made false or misleading representations concerning the Qoin Wallet, including that:
This decision is important in many respects:
If you have any comments on this case or questions about what this might mean for your business, please contact Partner Austin Bell.
[1] Corporations Act s 911A(1) [2] Corporations Act s 911A(2)(a)(i) [3] Corporations Act s 916A(1) [4] Corporations Act s 911A(2)(b) [5] Corporations Act s 763A(1)(c) [6] Corporations Act s 763D(1) [7] Corporations Act s 762C [8] ‘send’ and ‘receive’ are used here colloquially. A transaction using Qoin does not result in the actual transfer of a thing, but involves an increase or decrease in one person’s Qoin balance and a corresponding decrease or increase in the other person’s Qoin balance, which is facilitated by and recorded on the Qoin Blockchain (at [62] – [64]). [9] Corporations Act s 911A(2)(a) [10] Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99 at 109 [11] Address by ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland at the ‘The Brief – Open Forum’ as part of Blockchain APAC’s Policy Week, 20 March 2024
While all eyes have been on the recent introduction of the privacy reform Bill to Parliament, there have been a number of other updates that continue to inform the shifting patterns of opportunity,...
Finally, the Australian Government has initiated the long-waited for Tranche 2 reforms to its anti-money laundering regime with considerable fanfare.
The Federal Court last week handed down its decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Firstmac Limited [2024] FCA 737. ASIC was successful in its claim that Firstmac Limited...