Federal Court of Australia

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merhi (No 4) [2026] FCA 916

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the orders made on 17 July 2025 (as varied by paragraph 5 of the orders made on 17 November 2025, paragraph 1 of the orders made on 27 March 2026 and paragraph 6 of the orders made on 15 June 2026) be vacated, with the intent that the first defendant be permitted to collect his passport from the Victoria District Registry of this Court.

2.    Costs be reserved.

3.    There be liberty to apply.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MOSHINSKY J:

Introduction

1    This judgment deals with an informal application by the first defendant, Mr Ferras Merhi, to vacate or vary a travel restraint order that was made on 17 July 2025 (and which has been extended by consent since then).

2    Mr Merhi’s informal application was made by email to the Court on 19 June 2026. The email attached a proposed minute of orders which provided for the travel restraint order to be vacated; alternatively, for there to be a ‘carve out’ from the travel restraint order to enable Mr Merhi to travel to Saudi Arabia and Dubai for a period of up to two weeks.

3    As noted above, the original travel restraint order was made on 17 July 2025: see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merhi [2025] FCA 829 (the July 2025 Judgment). The travel restraint order was made pursuant to s 1323(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) on the basis that the plaintiff (ASIC) was investigating Mr Merhi.

4    Since then, the travel restraint order has been extended by consent on a number of occasions. Most recently, on 15 June 2026, orders were made by consent extending the travel restraint order to 4.00 pm on 11 November 2026.

5    Mr Merhi’s application to vacate or vary the travel restraint order is opposed by ASIC.

6    The parties rely on a large number of affidavits, many of which were filed in connection with earlier hearings. The most recent affidavits relied on by the parties are as follows:

(a)    Mr Merhi relies on his own affidavits dated 11 June 2026, 18 June 2026 and 3 July 2026; and

(b)    ASIC relies on an affidavit of Mr Brody Wons dated 30 June 2026.

7    In advance of the hearing, each of Mr Merhi and ASIC filed an outline of submissions.

Applicable principles

8    Section 1323 relevant provides:

1323    Power of Court to prohibit payment or transfer of money, financial products or other property

(1)    Where:

(a)    an investigation is being carried out under the ASIC Act or this Act in relation to an act or omission by a person, being an act or omission that constitutes or may constitute a contravention of this Act; or

(b)    a prosecution has been begun against a person for a contravention of this Act; or

(c)    a civil proceeding has been begun against a person under this Act;

and the Court considers it necessary or desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting the interests of a person (in this section called an aggrieved person) to whom the person referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), as the case may be, (in this section called the relevant person), is liable, or may be or become liable, to pay money, whether in respect of a debt, by way of damages or compensation or otherwise, or to account for financial products or other property, the Court may, on application by ASIC or by an aggrieved person, make one or more of the following orders:

…

(j)    if the relevant person is a natural person—an order requiring that person to deliver up to the Court his or her passport and such other documents as the Court thinks fit;

(k)    if the relevant person is a natural person—an order prohibiting that person from leaving this jurisdiction, or Australia, without the consent of the Court.

…

(5)    Where the Court has made an order under this section on a person’s application, the Court may, on application by that person or by any person affected by the order, make a further order discharging or varying the first‑mentioned order.

9    There is no dispute between the parties as to the applicable principles. It is sufficient for present purposes to refer to the July 2025 Judgment at [69]-[71].

Consideration

10    Mr Merhi’s informal application to vacate the travel restraint order is brought under s 1323(5). In circumstances where Mr Merhi seeks to vacate the travel restraint order, it is necessary to consider afresh whether there is a proper basis to make a travel restraint order.

11    Since the original travel restraint order was made, ASIC has filed a further amended originating process and pleadings. ASIC’s current pleading is its amended statement of claim dated 18 May 2026. This contains allegations that Mr Merhi has contravened provisions of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The relief sought against Mr Merhi includes orders disqualifying him from managing corporations and orders for the payment of pecuniary penalties.

12    The proceeding as now on foot satisfies paragraph (c) of s 1323(1). Also, I was informed by counsel for ASIC that ASIC’s investigation of Mr Merhi is still on foot (but it does not appear that there is any direct evidence to this effect). If so, this would satisfy paragraph (a) of s 1323(1).

13    At the hearing today, I asked counsel for ASIC how it is said that the prerequisite in the opening lines of s 1323(1) is satisfied here. Specifically, I asked how it is said that the travel restraint order is:

necessary or desirable … for the purpose of protecting the interests of a person … to whom [Mr Merhi] … is liable, or may be or become liable, to pay money, whether in respect of a debt, by way of damages or compensation or otherwise, or to account for financial products or other property …

14    Counsel for ASIC was not able to identify any specific basis upon which ASIC contended that this prerequisite for the making of a travel restraint order is satisfied.

15    While ASIC’s investigation may be still on foot, there is no evidence that Mr Merhi is needed for further examinations. Counsel for ASIC confirmed that Mr Merhi is not required for further examinations.

16    Further, if and to the extent that there are persons to whom Mr Merhi may be or become liable to pay compensation (if ASIC’s allegations in the proceeding are made out), it is not apparent how the travel restraint order is necessary or desirable to protect their interests. In response to questions from the Court about this, counsel for ASIC accepted that he could not point to anything.

17    In light of the above, I am not satisfied that the prerequisite set out above for the making of a travel restraint order is satisfied. Accordingly, it is appropriate to vacate the travel restraint order. It is therefore unnecessary to consider whether there should be a carve out from the travel restraint order.

Associate:

Dated:    13 July 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES