02/09/2026
The Federal Court has imposed a penalty of $3.5 million against Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd (trading as CashnGo) regarding its use of, and reliance on, unfair contract terms in more than 47,000 standard form small amount credit contracts (SACCs) with consumers.
In proceedings brought by ASIC, CashnGo admitted that it included unfair contract terms in its SACCs and failed to provide legally compliant default notices to thousands of consumers. CashnGo consented to the orders sought by ASIC, including the amount of the penalty imposed by the Court.
CashnGo admitted that, after a consumer missed a repayment, its Default Term and Authority Terms (see background below) allowed CashnGo’s automated systems to:
monitor a consumer’s bank account balance
repeatedly attempt to make withdrawals to recover the missed payment, as soon as funds became available, without prior notice of the timing, frequency or amount of the intended unscheduled withdrawal (Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice), and
undertake the Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice without giving consumers the ability to opt out.
CashnGo admitted, and the Court ordered, that those terms are unfair.
ASIC Chair Sarah Court said, ‘By monitoring consumers’ accounts and withdrawing consumers’ funds without notice shortly after they were deposited, CashnGo denied consumers control over their own finances, which is unacceptable conduct.
‘Many consumers were likely already experiencing financial difficulty and may have been left without enough money for essentials including food, rent and day-to-day living expenses.
‘This case demonstrates that ASIC will take action where lenders use unfair contract terms which may harm consumers.’
The Court ordered that the Default and Authority terms are void from 14 September 2026 in all SACCs current consumer contracts. The Court also ordered that from 14 September 2026, CashnGo introduce replacement terms into its contracts, which will allow consumers to opt out of CashnGo's Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice.
CashnGo also admitted, and the Court held, that its Limitation of Liability terms and Indemnity terms (set out in the Background section below) were unfair, and the Court declared those terms void from the start of all SACCs entered into with consumers from 20 April 2022, which means those terms should be treated as having never formed part of the contracts.
CashnGo admitted that between April 2022 and May 2025 it entered into more than 201,000 SACCs with over 85,000 consumers, which contained unfair contract terms.
CashnGo also admitted:
from 9 November 2023 to 30 June 2026, engaging in 190,546 contraventions by making a small amount credit contract with consumers that contained unfair contract terms
from 9 November 2023 to 30 June 2026, engaging in at least 658,000 contraventions by applying or relying on the Default and Authority unfair contract terms when conducting its debt collection practices, and
from 11 March 2021 to 6 June 2023, it failed to provide default notices which complied with s 87 of the National Credit Code (being Schedule 1 to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) on 67,545 occasions, affecting more than 53,000 consumers.
CashnGo also consented to orders that it:
will publish on its website a notice to consumers which sets out the changes made to their SACCs, and
be permanently restrained from applying or relying on the unfair terms, or any term in substantially the same terms, in future SACCs with consumers.
In handing down judgment, Justice Jackman said, 'CashnGo obtained and exercised a substantial degree of practical control over the timing, amounts and frequency by which overdue repayments were recovered from consumers following default. This had the practical effect of allowing CashnGo to subordinate other calls on a consumer’s funds to the consumer’s obligation to repay CashnGo which could leave consumers without funds to pay for essential needs such as food, accommodation, or medical expenses.’
Justice Jackman found that CashnGo’s Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice could, and at times did, leave consumers with less than $5 in their account.
Justice Jackman said the contraventions were serious and ‘...not the result of isolated conduct by junior employees. They arose from systems, contractual terms and practices of CashnGo’s senior management and directors.’
Further, Justice Jackman held that the contraventions ‘occurred in connection with the provision of SACCs to consumers seeking access to relatively small sums of money on an urgent basis and who may have been unable to obtain credit from mainstream lenders. CashnGo expressly marketed its products to consumers who required funds quickly and to consumers with poor credit histories. In those circumstances, the unfair contract terms and the Unscheduled Withdrawals Practice operated against consumers, some of whom were likely to be vulnerable to financial hardship arising from unexpected and ongoing withdrawals from their bank accounts.’
The penalty is to be paid in instalments within two years.
