August 28, 2026 — 5:00amA western Sydney accountant has suffered a major legal blow after the Supreme Court found it had no confidence he was working in the interests of more than 500 investors and ordered liquidators to examine winding up 12 of his companies.A years-long investigation by Australian Securities and Investments Commission found Christopher Edwards’ 12 entities held only $143 million in assets in late January 2026 while owing investors and banks $240 million, an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court shows.Claire Heffernan is the daughter of one of Christopher Edwards’ clients.Glenn HuntJustice Scott Nixon in his judgment cited evidence from the corporate regulator which asserted Edwards’ companies appeared to “exist primarily to raise funds from investors and service debts” rather than to generate sufficient business to meet their obligations.As previously reported by the Herald, ASIC determined that Edwards raised $182 million from clients, with the corporate regulator calculating that figure was $220 million across more than 500 investors once interest payments were included.The judgment confirms the concerns of clients who alleged the Richmond-based businessman had acted inappropriately, refusing to repay their investments.Claire Heffernan’s 84-year-old mother, Margaret, handed her life savings, totalling $370,000, to Edwards five years ago. Under the terms of the loan agreement, the principal was supposed to be repaid two years ago. None has been repaid. Even the family’s requests for funds to purchase an electric bed after Margaret broke her spine have fallen on deaf ears, Claire alleges.Claire is pessimistic about the prospects of her mother seeing her money again.“The people who got him to where he is, the little people handing over their retirement money, they’re the ones that are going to end up with 30¢ in the dollar – if they’re lucky,” the 53-year-old said.She believes Edwards should face criminal charges, alleging he failed to act in the best interest of his investors. But she also argues the regulators should be held accountable for allowing him to operate for so long without repercussions.Christopher Edwards pictured near his office in February.Wolter PeetersIn his judgment, Nixon appointed Kathryn Evans and Vaughan Strawbridge of FTI Consulting as provisional liquidators, finding there was a good chance the corporate regulator would be successful in obtaining a winding up order.Nixon concluded there was a sufficient basis to interrogate Edwards’ companies’ accounts, finding there were major shortcomings in his financial records and the operation of these businesses had been undertaken “without due regard to legal requirements”.These reasons left the court “without confidence that the companies’ affairs will be properly conducted with due regard for the interests of creditors and, in particular, investors”.In its case against Edwards, ASIC alleged his companies were operating an “unsustainable” business model and were unable to meet their liabilities, while noting two regulatory bodies had made adverse findings about his conduct.An affidavit filed by ASIC included financial records showing the amount Edwards’ 12 companies owed to investors rocketed from $84 million by June 2018 to nearly $223 million in January this year.These accounts show the companies held a little over $2 million in cash between them.ASIC also alleged there had been “deficiencies and inconsistencies” in financial information, a lack of transparency and information to investors, and repeated failures by his companies to meet their statutory obligations. This included requests for financial documents stretching back to 2024.On Tuesday, Edwards emailed clients reiterating the liquidator’s appointment was only provisional at this stage, with a report determining whether his companies should be wound up expected in 10 weeks.“I have had my first meeting with them yesterday, so early days at the moment. I should be able to give you a further update in a few weeks’ time,” he said.He did not respond to multiple requests from the Herald for comment.The Law Society refused to renew Edwards’ legal practising certificate in March, finding his conduct demonstrated “he is not of good fame and character”. In May, the Tax Practitioners Board terminated Edwards’ registration as a tax agent, concluding he personally owed the tax office a combined $741,473. He is appealing both decisions.Asked by the Herald earlier this year about why he was refusing to repay his clients, Edwards said the civil courts would “determine whether I have contractual obligations or not”. Asked whether he had acted inappropriately, he replied: “Correct. I haven’t.”Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.From our partners