![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/36f9b86d564cdbf394a253ea048ec316.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nAn illegal payday lending scheme’s companies and directors have been fined $7 million, with the penalties softened partly because the men in charge had sought top-shelf legal advice.<\/p>\n
Fines of $3 million were issued in the Federal Court to both Gold Coast-based Cigno Australia and BSF Solutions.<\/p>\n
Their respective sole directors, former Super Rugby halfback Mark Swanepoel and Brenton Harrison, also received $500,000 fines each.<\/p>\n
The fines were issued against an operation that breached credit rules and generated more than $91 million in fees and charges.<\/p>\n
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had also highlighted $60.5 million in payments to related companies.<\/p>\n
But the court, based on the companies’ accounts, said joint profits to the two payday-lending scheme companies were only $3.7 million.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mark Swanepoel has been ordered to pay $500,000. (Getty Images: Stefan Postles)<\/p>\n
ASIC had taken action against the companies and the men, securing findings in 2024 that the scheme had breached credit laws relating to fees and charges.<\/p>\n
The subsequent penalty was only handed down on Friday.<\/p>\n
ASIC chairman Joe Longo said the result showed his organisation’s commitment to “protecting Australians from predatory lending practices and holding individuals and companies accountable”.<\/p>\n
ASIC has had a series of legal battles going back more than a decade with entities associated with the latest lending scheme.<\/p>\n
Stephanie Tonkin, chief executive of the Consumer Action Law Centre, told the ABC the court had reasoned that the $7 million penalty was substantial and designed to deter future conduct of this nature.<\/p>\n
“However, given the many-years-long saga \u2026 and the widespread harm, I query where $7 million will be enough to be the final nail in the coffin,” she said.<\/p>\n
Ms Tonkin, however, also argued that it was “very significant that the directors have been personally held liable”.<\/p>\n
The companies had devised a No Upfront Charge Loan Model and the court heard fees of almost $90 million were charged between July 2022 and May 2024.<\/p>\n
Cigno Australia then offered access to loans from $50 to $1,000 \u2014 Centrelink loans and payday loans, among others. Its website screamed: “EMERGENCY cash when you need it.”<\/p>\n
Mr Swanepoel, in court documents, had denied the company was marketing to “last resort” customers and instead said it was after “any consumer, and every consumer”.<\/p>\n
![\"Cigno](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/63d02d55adbf3848179e403373d1fecb.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n
Cigno Australia’s website advertised “EMERGENCY cash when you need it”. (Supplied)<\/p>\n
Justice Ian Jackman says the contraventions were “serious and have occasioned loss and harm to consumers in substantial amounts, and that there have been no attempts to remedy the contraventions or to express contrition and remorse”.<\/p>\n
But he also pointed to the two men having sought advice from national law firm Piper Alderman after previous lending schemes had led to battles with regulators.<\/p>\n
“I infer that that request for advice was made because the respondents genuinely regarded the relevant law as complex and uncertain, and because they genuinely intended to act lawfully,” he said.<\/p>\n
“The respondents undoubtedly regarded Piper Alderman as competent to give that advice.”<\/p>\n
He said that advice did not “wholly exonerate the respondents from liability” for a fine, but the evidence about taking advice had “significance in reducing the amount of the penalty which would otherwise have been appropriate”.<\/p>\n
The court heard company accounts showed Cigno earned profits of $1.5 million and BSF $2.2 million, and this was not challenged by ASIC.<\/p>\n
ASIC had highlighted payments of $8.5 million to companies associated with Mr Harrison and $51.9 million to companies associated with Mr Swanepoel, but Justice Jackman said the question of how they were paid was not explored.<\/p>\n
“The explanation may also lie in part in the payment of dividends or in the payment of business for services rendered,” he said.<\/p>\n
Justice Jackman also said there was “no evidence of financial benefit obtained personally” by either director.<\/p>\n
He argued it was appropriate to focus on net profit for the companies as a measure of benefits and the penalty should be so high as to deter future breaches, and contain “sufficient sting or burden”.<\/p>\n
The penalty should partly involve “disgorgement of the benefits” of profits, he said.<\/p>\n
ASIC had argued that without a significant penalty against the directors, they might engage in future contraventions of credit laws.<\/p>\n
“I accept that there is a realistic possibility of that occurring at some time in the future, although I do not think it realistic to think that Mr Harrison and Mr Swanepoel would engage in further credit-related activity without first taking legal advice from suitably qualified lawyers and proceeding only where they genuinely believe that they can do so in compliance with the law,” he said.<\/p>\n
Attempts to obtain comment from the directors were unsuccessful.<\/p>\n