EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 110

ASIC v Saad

A Federal Court ASIC investigation case about travel restraint orders, director compliance and a limited overseas travel carve-out.

Federal Court of Australia17 Feb 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • ASIC investigation orders can affect directors personally before any final liability finding.
  • A Federal Court ASIC investigation case about travel restraint orders, director compliance and a limited overseas travel carve-out.

Use this to check

  • ASIC can seek interim restraints while investigations are still ongoing.
  • Directors should keep a clear record of compliance with court and regulator requirements.
  • Travel carve-outs need evidence about purpose, timing, return and risk.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • ASIC was conducting an investigation into Mr Saad and entities associated with him.
    • The official Federal Court summary records that ASIC had previously obtained travel restraint orders under section 1323 of the Corporations Act and that those orders had later been extended by consent.
    • Mr Saad then sought a carve-out so he could travel overseas for 12 days.
    • The application was made after he had been subject to the travel restraint for more than six months.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether to vary existing travel restraint orders made under section 1323 of the Corporations Act so that Mr Saad could travel overseas for a limited period while ASIC's investigation continued.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court granted the requested carve-out, allowing overseas travel for the limited period.
    • The decision varied the restraint position for that trip only.
    • It did not resolve ASIC's broader investigation or make final findings about the underlying matters.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • ASIC investigation orders can affect directors personally before any final liability finding.
  • If travel restraints or asset-protection orders are made, directors need careful evidence, cooperation records and a realistic proposal before asking the Court for a carve-out.

Useful next steps

  • ASIC can seek interim restraints while investigations are still ongoing.
  • Directors should keep a clear record of compliance with court and regulator requirements.
  • Travel carve-outs need evidence about purpose, timing, return and risk.
  • Consent extensions do not mean later variation will be automatic.
  • Regulatory investigations should be managed centrally, not through casual director communications.

Practical read

This case is not about ordinary business travel. It is about what can happen when ASIC is investigating and the Court has already made personal restraint orders. Directors sometimes think regulatory proceedings only bite once liability is proved. That is not always how it works. Interim orders can restrict travel or preserve assets while an investigation or proceeding continues.

The useful business point is evidence. A director asking for permission to travel needs more than a convenient itinerary. The Court will look at the purpose of travel, ties to Australia, the history of compliance with orders, the length of the restraint and the risk that the person will not return. ASIC's investigation interests and the protection purpose of the orders remain central.

For small businesses, the lesson is to cooperate carefully and keep records. If ASIC notices, interviews, production requests or restraint orders appear, directors should not improvise. They need one controlled file showing what has been provided, what orders apply, what undertakings have been given and what evidence supports any request to vary restrictions.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Keep a single register of ASIC notices, orders, undertakings and deadlines.
  • Preserve evidence showing compliance with any restraint order.
  • Prepare a precise itinerary and return evidence before seeking travel permission.
  • Do not treat an investigation as informal just because final liability has not been decided.
  • Get legal help before communicating with ASIC about a restraint variation.

Key takeaways

  • ASIC can seek interim restraints while investigations are still ongoing.
  • Directors should keep a clear record of compliance with court and regulator requirements.
  • Travel carve-outs need evidence about purpose, timing, return and risk.
  • Consent extensions do not mean later variation will be automatic.
  • Regulatory investigations should be managed centrally, not through casual director communications.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help