Former Equitable Financial Solutions director Usman Siddiqui has been sentenced to six years and six months in prison after dishonestly transferring approximately A$1.75 million from the company to personal and overseas accounts. According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s sentencing announcement, Siddiqui will serve at least three years and three months before becoming eligible for parole.
The sentence concerns transfers made between May and October 2019, when Equitable Financial Solutions was already facing substantial refund demands, adverse complaint determinations and legal action from a client. The company, which provided Sharia-compliant investment and lending products primarily to members of Australia’s Muslim community, entered liquidation in November 2019 and was subsequently determined to owe more than A$20 million to creditors.
A$1.75 Million Left as Refund Claims Mounted
Siddiqui was Equitable Financial Solutions’ sole director when he transferred company money into his personal accounts and then into accounts he controlled overseas. The timing was central to the case. ASIC said Siddiqui knew by the middle of 2019 that the company was in a dire financial position, yet the transfers continued until October.
At that stage, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority had issued numerous determinations against Equitable Financial Solutions totalling more than A$1 million. Clients were also waiting for approximately A$11.3 million in investment refunds, while one client had begun legal proceedings to recover A$3 million.
Equitable Financial Solutions was placed into liquidation on 26 November 2019. By February 2020, its liabilities to clients and other creditors exceeded A$20 million. Its liquidators considered that the company had probably been insolvent since approximately 1 July 2016, more than three years before the transfers forming the criminal case.
The figures explain why the conduct was more serious than an unauthorised movement of company money in an otherwise solvent business. Funds were being removed while unresolved client claims substantially exceeded the company’s available resources. Similar tensions between investor losses, asset preservation and formal insolvency proceedings have appeared in other Australian enforcement matters, including the court-ordered winding up of Capital Guard entities following allegations involving A$17.4 million.
From Travel Restraints to a Guilty Plea
The criminal outcome followed an investigation lasting several years. In November 2022, the Federal Court initially ordered Siddiqui to surrender his passport and later restrained him from leaving Australia. ASIC said at the time that its investigation was continuing and that it was concerned he may have contravened financial-services laws.
NSW Police arrested Siddiqui on 2 November 2023 after ASIC charged him with four counts of dishonestly using his position as a director. He was granted bail subject to a condition preventing him from leaving Australia. The original ASIC case record shows that Siddiqui pleaded not guilty to four counts in December 2024 and was committed for trial.
That trial was eventually scheduled to begin in July 2026, but Siddiqui changed his plea on 17 June. He pleaded guilty to two counts of dishonestly using his position, while a third offence was taken into account when the court sentenced him on the first count. ASIC has not explained in its public releases how the remaining original charge was resolved.
The case joins a growing group of Australian criminal prosecutions involving directors accused of using company or client money for purposes outside the representations made to investors. Recent examples include the guilty plea by a director in a separate A$1.5 million foreign-exchange investment case and the admission by a former Berndale Capital director concerning client funds. Each case has distinct facts, but all place the control and traceability of investor money at the centre of directors’ personal exposure.
Why This Became a Criminal Directors’ Duties Case
Siddiqui was convicted under section 184(2)(a) of the Corporations Act. Under the current Corporations Act, a director or officer commits a criminal offence when the person dishonestly uses their position with the intention of gaining an advantage for themselves or another person, or causing detriment to the company. The offence carries a maximum prison term of 15 years.
This distinction matters because not every breach of a director’s duties produces a criminal conviction. ASIC can respond to corporate misconduct through administrative action, civil proceedings or criminal referral, depending on the conduct and available evidence. Licence cancellation, for example, removes a firm’s authority to provide regulated services, as occurred after compensation was paid to clients of Calaite Capital Partners. Siddiqui’s intentional and dishonest use of his position placed the conduct on the criminal track.
Judge Emphasises White-Collar Deterrence
Judge Anderson SC found that the offending involved multiple occasions of intentional dishonest conduct. In imposing the sentence, the judge also emphasised that general deterrence plays a particularly important role in cases involving white-collar offenders. The three-year-and-three-month non-parole period means the sentence carries an immediate custodial consequence rather than operating principally as a financial or corporate sanction.
“Directors hold positions of trust and are required to act in the best interests of their companies. Mr Siddiqui abused that trust by dishonestly misappropriating company funds for his own benefit,” ASIC Chair Sarah Court said. “This sentence reflects the seriousness of that conduct and serves as a warning that ASIC will take action against directors who abuse their responsibilities for personal gain.”
The prosecution was conducted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions following ASIC’s investigation. It arrives after a financial year in which ASIC obtained a record A$830 million in court-ordered civil penalties, although Siddiqui’s imprisonment demonstrates the different consequences available when misconduct meets the threshold for a criminal directors’ duties offence.
Creditor Recovery Remains a Separate Issue
The prison sentence resolves Siddiqui’s criminal liability, but it does not establish how much money creditors will ultimately recover. ASIC’s announcement does not state whether any of the A$1.75 million transferred overseas has been recovered, nor does it provide an updated estimate of distributions from the liquidation.
That separation between punishment and compensation is important for investors. A conviction may deter future misconduct, but customers generally depend on liquidators, asset-recovery proceedings, insurance or applicable compensation arrangements to recover lost funds. With Equitable Financial Solutions owing more than A$20 million by early 2020, the final financial outcome for its former clients remains distinct from the six-and-a-half-year sentence imposed on its former director.
Other Articles
