The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ordered the winding up of Capital Guard AU Pty Ltd after accepting the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s application, following an investigation that uncovered evidence of alleged fake bond investments, false documents provided to auditors and the movement of millions of dollars of investor funds into crypto-asset platforms and currency exchanges.
According to ASIC, Capital Guard raised approximately A$17.4 million from around 80 investors while promoting itself as a specialist in corporate bond investments. The regulator alleged serious misconduct, including the promotion of a fake Macquarie Bank bond, misleading statements to investors and the provision of false documents to its auditor. The court appointed Robert Kirman and Jacinta Nielsen of McGrathNicol as joint and several liquidators to investigate the company’s affairs and seek to recover assets for creditors and investors.
While ASIC’s announcement highlighted concerns over investor protection, the court judgment provides a detailed picture of what investigators allege occurred inside the company.
ASIC Says Most Investor Money Never Reached Bond Markets
ASIC’s forensic analysis found that Capital Guard received approximately A$17.414 million from investors between April 2025 and June 2026. Of that amount, investigators identified only around A$100,000 being used to purchase corporate bonds.
Instead, the regulator told the court that approximately A$9 million appeared to have been transferred to crypto-asset platforms, around A$4.1 million moved through foreign exchange transactions and roughly A$2.2 million was paid back to investors as purported interest, dividends or repayments of principal. Only about A$110,000 remained in known company accounts by the time ASIC completed its analysis.
The court concluded there were strong grounds to question the conduct and management of the company, noting that the available evidence suggested investor funds had largely not been used for the bond investments clients believed they were purchasing.
Alleged Fake Corporate Bonds
The judgment describes several examples in which retail investors were allegedly sold corporate bonds that either did not exist as represented or that Capital Guard had no apparent authority or capacity to hold on their behalf.
In one case, a client transferred A$100,000 after receiving documentation for what purported to be a Macquarie Group bond. Macquarie later informed ASIC that no such retail investment product existed and that the security identified in Capital Guard’s documentation had already been redeemed before the client transferred funds.
Other investors were sold purported Liberty Funding, Judo Bank and Peppers Residential Securities Trust bonds. ASIC told the court its investigation found no evidence that Capital Guard had acquired those securities on behalf of clients, while Liberty confirmed that documents provided to retail investors did not represent legitimate Liberty offerings.
False Documents Allegedly Provided To Auditor
The court also considered evidence that Capital Guard allegedly supplied false account statements during its audit process.
According to the judgment, documents provided to the company’s auditor purported to show holdings of multiple corporate bonds through an account at FIIG Securities. When ASIC obtained records directly from FIIG for the same account, those statements showed only two Judo Bank bond holdings worth A$50,000 each and did not match the securities listed in the documents supplied by Capital Guard.
The auditor ultimately issued a disclaimer of opinion on the company’s financial statements after stating that sufficient evidence could not be obtained to verify the existence, ownership and valuation of the reported investments.
Sole Director Claimed He Had No Oversight
One of the more unusual aspects of the case involved the evidence given by Capital Guard’s sole director, Mark Tasiyan.
According to the judgment, Tasiyan told ASIC investigators that although he was listed internally as Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, he exercised virtually no oversight over the business. He said he became director at another individual’s suggestion, opened company bank accounts before handing over the login credentials, visited the office only once, never used his company email account, did not know where business records were kept and had no knowledge of the company’s funds under management or whether it invested in cryptocurrencies. He also denied authorising the signature that appeared on the company’s financial statements.
The court concluded there was no basis to believe the company’s affairs could be regularised under the existing management and found that winding up the business was necessary to protect investors and the public interest.
Liquidators Take Control As Investigation Continues
The court appointed Robert Kirman and Jacinta Nielsen of McGrathNicol as joint and several liquidators to take control of Capital Guard, investigate its affairs and seek to preserve and recover assets for creditors.
ASIC said its investigation into Capital Guard and related persons and entities remains ongoing. The regulator has already cancelled the company’s Australian Financial Services licence after finding serious misconduct, including promoting a fake Macquarie bond, providing false documents to its auditor and making misleading statements on its website.
The case is one of the most significant Australian investment enforcement actions of the year. Beyond the winding-up order itself, the court’s findings paint a picture of an investment business that allegedly raised millions of dollars for bond investments that either did not exist or were never acquired, while substantial amounts of investor money flowed through crypto-asset platforms and foreign exchange transactions. The work of the liquidators will now determine whether additional assets can be recovered for investors and whether further regulatory or enforcement action follows.