Financial adviser Bradley Grimm appeals dishonesty conviction and sentence at Supreme Court

A financial adviser imprisoned for siphoning clients’ money into his own companies has lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court despite pleading guilty to the dishonesty offences.

Bradley Grimm outside the County Court in June 2024. Picture: Channel 9

An imprisoned financial adviser has sought to overturn his conviction and sentence five months after being jailed for siphoning retirement savings from vulnerable clients into his own companies’ bank accounts.

Bradley Grimm, 56 and formerly of Ostrava Equities, in 2015 targeted three women, including a 74-year-old retired hospital cleaner whose husband was dying, an office manager, and a switchboard operator.

He helped each of his victims set up self-managed super funds into which their retirement savings were deposited.

Without their knowledge, Grimm then transferred their money into three separate companies that had little value and were controlled by him.

He consequently pleaded guilty to three counts of engaging in dishonest conduct while running a financial services business.

In September, he was fined and sentenced to 18 months’ prison, with at least nine months to be served before being released on a good behaviour bond.

Bradley Grimm was ordered to serve at least nine months of his jail sentence. Picture: Channel 9

Appealing at the Supreme Court on Friday, Grimm’s lawyer Simon Gillespie-Jones argued there had been a miscarriage of justice because Grimm believed he was not guilty despite having entered a guilty plea, and that he had acted legally according to the Corporations Act, which outlines rules regarding financial disclosure to investors.

Lawyer Sam Andrianakis then put forward that the sentence imposed on Grimm was “manifestly excessive”, and that other than the offending in question, Grimm was a “sophisticated and successful investor” who believed his companies would prosper.

Shaun Ginsbourg for the DPP said that if those arguments were correct, it would “sanction conduct no matter how dishonest” as long as the Corporations Act was complied with.

He said Grimm’s offending involved six dishonest transactions over seven months and with a total of $112,000, calling it a “gross breach of trust”.

He said the victims were left with “enduring feelings, understandably, of anger and betrayal by the applicant, whom they had trusted”.

The complainants in the case have been recompensed, the court heard, one by a public body.

Judge Phillip Priest said the conviction appeal would stand or fall on whether Grimm’s actions were deemed in accordance with the Corporations Act, and that what Grimm believed about his guilt was “of no real moment unless (that act) exonerates him”.

The matter was adjourned until a later date.

A scheduled bail application was not pursued.