“ASIC Should Get a Ten-Year Ban”: McIntyre Claims Regulator Caused More Than $10 Billion in Investor Losses
As his decade-long ban approaches its end, Jamie McIntyre is demanding an independent examination of ASIC’s conduct, an apology and $250 million in compensation.
Jamie McIntyre has launched a blistering attack on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, arguing that the regulator should face scrutiny over the financial damage he alleges its interventions have caused.
“The Australian public deserves to know the truth, not just in my matter, but in other matters,” McIntyre said.
His central accusation is that ASIC’s enforcement record should be measured against what investors ultimately recover—and whether regulatory intervention preserves or destroys the value of their investments.
McIntyre claims ASIC’s actions across multiple matters have collectively caused more than $10 billion in investor losses. He also claims his financial education, investment commentary and recommendations have helped clients generate more than $10 billion in wealth.
Neither figure has been independently substantiated for this article. They remain McIntyre’s estimates, rather than audited findings.
“If I didn’t cause the investor losses, and ASIC did, shouldn’t ASIC be the one getting banned for ten years?” he asked.
A Disputed Account of Investor Losses
McIntyre alleges that enforcement action and subsequent liquidation can destroy investment value, with the resulting losses then used to justify proceedings against promoters.
He disputes the prevailing account of his own case and wants an independent review of when losses occurred, what caused them, how assets were valued and whether alternative approaches could have delivered better outcomes for investors.
The official record provides essential context. ASIC’s published account states that the Federal Court declared five land banking developments to be unregistered managed investment schemes and imposed ten-year corporate management and financial services restrictions on Jamie and Dennis McIntyre. ASIC also records that the brothers agreed to the banning orders.
McIntyre’s present allegations challenge the regulator’s conduct and the explanation of investor losses. They do not overturn those court orders or findings.
The Forrest Case
McIntyre points to ASIC’s unsuccessful case against Andrew Forrest and Fortescue Metals Group as an example of why the regulator’s allegations should not automatically be accepted as fact.
In October 2012, the High Court unanimously allowed Forrest and Fortescue’s appeals, finding that the public statements at issue did not contravene the Corporations Act.
McIntyre alleges that ASIC subsequently adopted an approach in which investor losses became central to securing enforcement outcomes.
That alleged change in strategy is his interpretation. The Forrest judgment does not establish that ASIC deliberately caused losses in later cases.
“Examine My Entire Record”
McIntyre argues that public discussion of his career has focused overwhelmingly on regulatory proceedings, while overlooking the broader record of his financial commentary.
He cites his longstanding advocacy of Australian property, gold and silver; early enthusiasm for Bitcoin; interest in US property following the financial crisis; and later promotion of property opportunities in Bali, Lombok and Batumi, Georgia.
He says these calls demonstrate that his work should be assessed over decades, rather than through selected adverse headlines.
A reliable assessment would require dated recommendations, entry and exit prices, unsuccessful calls, costs and evidence of actual client outcomes. Rising markets alone cannot establish how much wealth a particular adviser or educator created.
Nevertheless, McIntyre maintains that his full record deserves examination.
Allegations of Political Targeting
McIntyre believes his independent media activities, political involvement and outspoken criticism of government policy contributed to the scrutiny directed at him.
He alleges that the coverage of his Australian history and Indonesian property projects forms part of a politically motivated campaign.
He also made allegations of intelligence agency involvement in media coverage. No independently verified evidence supporting those allegations was supplied for this article, and they are not presented as established facts.
His demand is for scrutiny of the underlying documents, financial records and decisions—rather than acceptance of either his account or the regulator’s account without examination.
A Demand for Compensation and Accountability
McIntyre is calling for an Australian government apology, $250 million in compensation for himself and compensation running into tens of millions of dollars for affected investors.
Those amounts are demands, rather than court-awarded entitlements.
He wants an independent examination of ASIC’s actions, liquidation outcomes and the treatment of investors in his matter and others.
The challenge he poses is direct: if investor protection is the justification for intervention, the regulator should be able to explain how its decisions protected investors, what those decisions cost and whether better outcomes were available.
McIntyre’s accusations remain disputed and require evidence. But his demand for accountability can be tested against records: asset valuations, recoveries, liquidation costs, enforcement decisions and investor outcomes.
As the ten-year period approaches its conclusion, he says he intends to continue pressing for that examination.
“The Australian public deserves to know the truth,” he said.
