It was a busy June day in 2010 when Jan Braund, a Sydney retiree,
bundled herself and her frail husband Alan onto a train for their
long-awaited shot at justice.

A year earlier, the Braunds had been left financially ruined
after a Commonwealth Bank financial planner named Don Nguyen switched
the couple's life savings from conservative to disastrously risky
investments. He did it without their knowledge or permission, allegedly
forging their signatures along the wayNow, the Braunds had been summoned by Australia's corporate and
market watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission,
to give her account of how Nguyen had wreaked havoc with their
finances and their lives.
Advertisement
Getting there was an ordeal. Alan, now deceased, had
advanced dementia and couldn't be left alone. When the couple tried to
leave the train, an exhausted and confused Alan tripped and fell after
his leg dropped into the platform gap.
Jan, with a dossier of evidence of forgery and unauthorised
transactions in hand, was determined to get to the meeting. She hoped it
would lead to justice.
But two weeks later, she received a call informing her that ASIC would not be using her evidence.
It later emerged that ASIC was tipped off about Don Nguyen's
activities 20 months before the Braunds travelled to Sydney's CBD for
their meeting. It waited until 2010 to launch an official investigation,
which culminated in an enforceable undertaking with the bank in late
2011 and the banning of seven planners, including Nguyen. Criminal
charges were never laid and CBA managers were never held accountable.
Jan Braund's powerful account of that June day - and its
aftermath - is set out in her submission to a landmark parliamentary
inquiry that is scrutinising ASIC's performance.
She was one of many customers who received inappropriate
advice from CBA financial planners and who were later compensated to the
tune of $51 million.
Hers is one of hundreds of submissions to the inquiry lodged
by lawyers, unions, victims, former staff, lobby groups, professional
bodies, whistleblowers, government bodies and financial institutions.
Some defend and praise ASIC, but most are critical - and a few are
tragic.