PUBLIC NOTICE – ARC CAPITAL VENTURE IMPERSONATION SCAM
────── PUBLIC NOTICE ──────
In the modern world, where investment scams and financial impersonation are rampant, we genuinely sympathise with those scam victims who have been deceived by offshore professional criminals impersonating legitimate financial services firms. Unfortunately, a very small minority of victims remain unwilling to accept that they made a serious mistake and were swindled by offshore criminal impersonators. They instead harass innocent Australian financial services firms that were themselves victims of impersonation through the fraudulent misuse of publicly available corporate and regulatory information. Equally concerning is that other parties seeking to profit financially from the victims' circumstances may find it more convenient or advantageous to instead falsely portray an innocent financial services firm as responsible for fraud perpetrated by unauthorised impersonators. It is these circumstances that have made this public statement necessary.
Public Statement:
Titan Securities Pty Ltd categorically denies any involvement in fraudulent investment activities conducted by unauthorised third parties who misused the corporate identities and publicly available regulatory details of Titan Securities Pty Ltd and ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd.
Neither company authorised, issued, promoted, arranged, administered or participated in the purported investments. They did not onboard the affected investors or provide any of the financial services allegedly offered to them.
The unknown individuals who solicited these purported investments were neither employees nor authorised representatives of Titan Securities and had no authority to act on behalf of either Titan Securities Pty Ltd or ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd.
The fraudulent use of a company's name, Australian Financial Services Licence number, Corporate Authorised Representative details or other publicly available information does not, of itself, establish that the company authorised, approved or participated in the activities of those misusing its identity.
Titan Securities is an established, owner-managed Australian financial services business that has operated since 2007. Both Titan Securities Pty Ltd and ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd have been victims of the fraudulent misuse of their corporate identities and regulatory credentials. This unauthorised conduct has caused Titan Securities substantial reputational damage, commercial disruption and loss of business.
Titan Securities maintains that responsibility for these fraudulent activities rests with the individuals and entities who actually perpetrated them, not with legitimate businesses whose identities were misappropriated.
We acknowledge that individuals may have suffered significant financial losses. However, Titan Securities firmly rejects any suggestion that it should bear responsibility for losses caused solely by the independent conduct of unauthorised third-party impersonators.
Titan Securities holds substantial documentary evidence, including sworn affidavit evidence, supporting its position that ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd was itself a victim of unauthorised third-party impersonation. This evidence supports the position that neither Titan Securities nor ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd authorised, participated in or benefited from the purported investment activities.
Titan Securities is concerned that materially disputed information has been circulated to affected investors, suggesting that ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd was established as an extension of a separate overseas entity. The former director to whom this claim was attributed has categorically denied making such a statement in a signed declaration. Titan Securities has not independently established whether the overseas entity actually existed as a legitimate operating business, was fictitious, or was itself impersonated. Ultimately, the relevant issue is not an alleged corporate association, but whether either Australian company actually authorised, provided or participated in the purported investment services. Neither company did.
Titan Securities will vigorously defend its reputation and legal rights against unfounded allegations, false representations and attempts to attribute the conduct of unauthorised third parties to the company. All available legal rights and remedies are expressly reserved.
Titan Securities encourages all investors to undertake independent due diligence before transferring funds. Investors should contact financial services businesses directly using independently verified contact details and confirm the identity and authorisation of any individual claiming to act on their behalf.
Titan Securities maintains that neither Titan Securities Pty Ltd nor ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd authorised, participated in or benefited from the purported investment scheme. Both companies were themselves victims of the fraudulent misuse of their identities.
Titan Securities – Employees and Individual Authorised Representatives
Titan Securities Pty Ltd has only ever employed one person, approximately 17 years ago, who remains its sole director and shareholder. The company has had no employees since. All current and formally appointed individual authorised representatives (natural persons, not corporate entities) are publicly recorded on ASIC's Authorised Representatives Register.
ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd had only one individual authorised representative approved under Titan Securities' AFSL. Neither company had any hidden or undisclosed employees, individual advisers or authorised representatives. None of the impersonators involved in the purported investments was ever employed, appointed, engaged or authorised by either company in any capacity whatsoever.
Titan Securities Pty Ltd
Australian Financial Services Licence No. 307040
────────────────────────
Relevant Australian Court Decisions – Impersonation and Corporate Authority
Australian courts have established important legal principles concerning impersonation and apparent authority, confirming that the fraudulent misuse of a company's identity, documentation or regulatory credentials does not, of itself, establish authority to act on its behalf or make the company legally responsible for an unauthorised third party's conduct. A person cannot create their own authority merely by falsely claiming to represent a legitimate company.
1. Crabtree-Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising & Addressing Co Pty Ltd [1975] HCA 49
The High Court established that an individual cannot create their own apparent authority merely by claiming to represent a company. Apparent authority must arise from representations or conduct attributable to the company itself or someone genuinely authorised by it.
2. Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35
The High Court confirmed the importance of a company's own conduct in establishing apparent authority. A third party's belief that someone represents a company is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that authority.
3. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v BPS Financial Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 74
The Full Federal Court confirmed that appointment as an Authorised Representative does not automatically mean every financial service undertaken by that representative is provided on behalf of the AFSL holder. The actual conduct and capacity in which services were provided must be examined.
4. GPP Arundel Pty Ltd v Basford Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 165
The Queensland Supreme Court found that a person who signed an agreement purportedly on behalf of property owners lacked the authority to bind them. The individual's actions alone were insufficient to establish actual or apparent authority.
5. Mobius Group Pty Ltd v Inoteq Pty Ltd [2024] WADC 114
The Western Australian District Court found that fraudulent payment instructions appearing to originate from a company were not necessarily authorised instructions from that company. The misuse of a company's identity or communications does not, of itself, establish that the company issued, approved or authorised the fraudulent instructions.
6. MJ Concepts Kotara Pty Ltd v Pandora Jewellery Pty Ltd (No 2) [2026] NSWDC 262
The NSW District Court found that fraudulent payment instructions appearing to originate from a company did not, of themselves, establish that the company had authorised those instructions. The fraudulent misuse of a company's identity or communications does not, by itself, give an impersonator authority to act on its behalf or legally bind the company.
Relevant Legislation and Principles of Agency Law
Australian law does not permit an unrelated impersonator to create authority merely by claiming an association with another person or company or by misusing publicly available company, CAR or AFSL details. Under sections 9, 769B, 911C and 917A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), liability and attribution depend upon an actual representative, agency relationship, authority or relevant conduct of the entity concerned. Section 911C expressly prohibits a person from falsely holding themselves out as acting for, or with the authority of, an AFSL holder. Under established Australian agency law, a person cannot create apparent authority merely by falsely claiming to represent another person or company.
Conclusion
These court decisions support Titan Securities' position that neither Titan Securities Pty Ltd nor ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd can be held liable solely for the fraudulent conduct of unauthorised third-party impersonators. Neither company authorised, participated in or endorsed their activities. The misuse of corporate identities, AFSL details or regulatory credentials does not, of itself, establish authority or legally attribute the impersonators' conduct to either company. Liability requires an independent factual and legal basis.
We sincerely regret the financial losses suffered by victims of this fraud. However, neither Titan Securities Pty Ltd nor ARC Capital Venture (Australia) Pty Ltd was involved in any way whatsoever in the purported investments or transactions and neither company can accept responsibility for the resulting losses. Both companies were themselves victims of unauthorised third-party impersonation and are therefore unable to provide compensation or financial assistance.