ASIC has been mon­i­tor­ing the increased use of crowd fund­ing in Aus­tralia for invest­ment purposes.

Crowd fund­ing’ involves the use of the inter­net and social media to raise funds in sup­port of a spe­cif­ic project or busi­ness idea. Project spon­sors typ­i­cal­ly receive some nom­i­nal reward in return for their funds.

On 14 August 2012, ASIC issued guid­ance to pro­mot­ers of crowd fund­ing’ to clar­i­fy arrange­ments that may be reg­u­lat­ed by ASIC under the Cor­po­ra­tions Act 2001 (Cor­po­ra­tions Act) and Aus­tralian Secu­ri­ties and Invest­ments Com­mis­sion Act 2001 (ASIC Act).

ASIC con­sid­ers that cer­tain crowd fund­ing arrange­ments may involve:

  • offer­ing or adver­tis­ing a finan­cial prod­uct, pro­vid­ing a finan­cial ser­vice or fundrais­ing through secu­ri­ties requir­ing a com­ply­ing dis­clo­sure doc­u­ment; or

  • a man­aged invest­ment scheme under Chap­ter 5C of the Cor­po­ra­tions Act, the pro­vi­sion of finan­cial ser­vices requir­ing an Aus­tralian finan­cial ser­vices (AFS) licence or a fundrais­ing under Chap­ter 6D of the Cor­po­ra­tions Act.

These activ­i­ties are reg­u­lat­ed by ASIC under the Cor­po­ra­tions Act and ASIC Act and may impose oner­ous legal oblig­a­tions on oper­a­tors of crowd fund­ing sites and on peo­ple using those sites to raise funds.

ASIC has also high­light­ed some risks for oper­a­tors of crowd fund­ing web­sites and peo­ple con­sid­er­ing par­tic­i­pat­ing in crowd fund­ing projects. In sum­ma­ry, the risks high­light­ed were:

  • a risk of fraud being car­ried out through crowd fund­ing websites;

  • a risk that fund­ed projects are not com­plet­ed and the project spon­sors do not receive the rewards promised;

  • a risk that the mon­ey col­lect­ed is lost due to the fraud or bank­rupt­cy of the web­site oper­a­tor before the mon­ey is passed on to the project creator.

For more infor­ma­tion on how to use a crowd fund­ing web­site and the reg­u­la­tions which apply, please contact:

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

No Appor­tion­ment for Sec­tion 37 DBP Act Claims even where the alleged con­cur­rent wrong­do­er is not a sub­con­trac­tor of the builder:

Kapi­la v Mon­u­ment Build­ing Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1306 con­firms that builders and nom­i­nat­ed super­vi­sors can be held ful­ly liable…

Tem­po­rary Dis­con­for­mi­ty in Build­ing Defects: Myth, Not Law

The ​“tem­po­rary dis­con­for­mi­ty” argu­ment in con­struc­tion dis­putes sug­gests that defec­tive work iden­ti­fied before prac­ti­cal com­ple­tion is not a breach while the…

The impor­tance of a Request for Tender

Issu­ing a request for ten­der (RFT) is more than just secur­ing the best or low­est price. An RFT is your oppor­tu­ni­ty to man­age…

In the News

The legal­i­ty of the Mar­ried at First Sight dis­missals”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 17 April 2026, Michael Byrnes is quoted.

Employ­ment issues sur­faced in this year’s sea­son of real­i­ty TV show Mar­ried at First Sight (MAFS), with rumours emerg­ing that…

Legal Essen­tials for Off Site Con­struc­tion | UNSW Sydney

A two-day con­struc­tion law short course equip­ping con­struc­tion and legal pro­fes­sion­als with the pro­cure­ment, reg­u­la­to­ry and dis­pute exper­tise required to…

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, We asked a lawyer to unpack Jack­ie O’s $82m case, and where it could land for ARN and Kyle”, pub­lished in Medi­aweek on 9 April 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“We asked a lawyer to unpack Jack­ie O’s $82m case, and where it could…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information