Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Guo (No 2) [2024] FCA 251 File number(s): VID 126 of 2024
Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN J
Date of judgment: 18 March 2024
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — application by defendant to discharge travel restriction orders made under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which were obtained by ASIC on ex parte basis — where defendant is the subject of an ASIC investigation into alleged contraventions of ss 181-184 of the Act and ss 81–82 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) — application dismissed
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 13 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 180—184, 1323(1), 1323(1)(a), 1323(1)(j), 1323(1)(k) Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 81, 82
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ActiveSuper Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 318 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Guo [2024] FCA 125 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hawley (2008) 250 ALR 57; [2008] FCA 1423 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Johnston [2009] FCA 1276 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wiggins (1998) 90 FCR 314 Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968) v Carey (No 19) (2008) 65 ACSR 421; [2008] FCA 38 Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 3) (2006) 232 ALR 577; [2006] FCA 433
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate