Two relevant providers, anonymised as Mr S and Mr G, have fronted the Panel over concerns they had contravened section 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act. In comparison, 2025 only saw one instance of the FSCP taking no action after a relevant provider had failed to comply with their continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. This latest case closely follows another decision handed down by the FSCP last week when a relevant provider – Mr F – received a written reprimand for having charged ongoing financial advice fees while failing to provide the services for which they were being charged.