sentence — 2 counts of engaging in dishonest conduct in relation to financial product in course of carrying on financial services business offence contrary to s 1041G of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — submitted applications for shares and table of applications for shares of two companies containing false or misleading information about beneficial holders of shares — benefit received was $47,700 — actions were not critical to listing of companies but offender did not know that at the time — towards lower end of objective seriousness— guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — pleas occurred at earliest possible opportunity — type of prosecution would be complex and protracted through need to prove various matters and call up to 26 witnesses to do so — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — pleas are evidence of remorse — letters offender wrote to ASIC are evidence of remorse — mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — frequently people invest because investment is recommended by persons whose judgment they trust — offenders symptoms of ADHD played part in offending — willingness to perform dishonest acts was influenced by condition — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — offences are hard to detect and prove — investigation was long and expensive — ASX relies on accuracy of shareholder details provided by companies — unrealistic to expect company or ASX to investigate each application as to validity of entity especially its address — general deterrence tempered by effect of ADHD — many persons in community would not identify with offender due to disorder — deterrence not tempered by publicity received in financial publications — if case receives further publicity then it simply fosters purpose of general deterrence — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — despite proceedings banning from providing financial services and attempts to educate themselves on obligations offender remains involved with many companies trusts and other financial entities — remains some need for specific deterrence — parity — Ekman was involve in similar conduct — Ekman has not been charged with criminal offences or received banning order — Ekman is not co-offender in proceedings — principle cannot apply — offender fined $15,000 on each charge for total of $30,000
