On this page
Our view: Max Funding's regulatory history makes a clearly documented proposal essential before considering an introduction. ASIC reported a $110,000 court penalty against Max Funding in 2025 concerning the assessment of genuine business purpose. That finding warrants scrutiny, but it is not a ruling that every current business-finance offer is unlawful.
On a small screen, scroll the table sideways to see every column.
| What to check | Review finding |
|---|---|
| Role in ASIC's proceeding | Loan introducer |
| Max Funding penalty reported | $110,000 |
| Other entity in the proceeding | Green County; separately penalised |
| Loans examined | Four loans to two consumers |
| What the case does not establish | That every business loan or current offer is unlawful |
What the court finding covered
ASIC's release reports combined penalties of $515,000: $405,000 for Green County and $110,000 for Max Funding. The Federal Court matter concerned four loans to two consumers, unlicensed credit activity and failures to establish a genuine business purpose. The release is linked beside the discussion below.
The named entities, conduct and loans matter. It would be inaccurate to apply the combined penalty solely to Max Funding or to describe the case as a finding about every business-finance arrangement it has introduced.
What the current website does show
The Max Funding FAQ is accessible and distinguishes preliminary eligibility from later verification and credit assessment (checked 5 October 2026). It describes potential line-of-credit access as subject to conditions at the time of a draw. These are useful qualifications to read alongside a fast-application headline.
We would not treat the preliminary result as money available for a purchase. Ask for the remaining conditions, the proposed legal lender and the documents needed before settlement. If a supplier requires a non-refundable deposit first, that timing risk remains with the business unless another arrangement has been agreed.
The website uses lending language, while ASIC's proceeding identifies Max Funding as the introducer for the particular Green County loans. Resolve the role in your own proposal rather than assuming the marketing name and creditor are identical. This is especially relevant where another platform or entity receives the application.
Turn broad price claims into a dated quotation
The FAQ describes pricing and early repayment in general terms, but that is not a personalised cost schedule. Request the annual or periodic basis, when interest is calculated, every charge and the net amount advanced. If the offer quotes a monthly rate, compare full cash flows rather than treating it as an annual rate.
For illustration, $50,000 approved with $2,000 of costs deducted leaves $48,000 to use. A property-backed transaction may also need costs paid before settlement. Ask which party charges each item and whether it is payable if funding does not proceed. The example is a method for checking a proposal, not a statement of Max Funding's fees.
Identify the parties responsible for the proposal
The introducer and lender have different roles. A borrower needs to know who is advancing the money, who is charging a service fee and who is responsible for each assessment. The name on a marketing page may not be the lender named in the agreement.
Keep the documents consistent with the real purpose
Separate business expenditure from personal expenditure and explain any mixed use to the provider and adviser. Do not sign a declaration you believe is inaccurate. If an intermediary suggests changing the description solely to qualify, obtain independent advice before proceeding.
The ASIC announcement is the source for the court findings, not a customer review or our own test application (checked 5 October 2026). Its practical relevance is the importance of identifying the real transaction and responsibilities, without extending the finding beyond the conduct described.
For a genuine business proposal, compare an eligible direct lender or a clearly disclosed broker route as well. A difficult credit history or urgent deadline makes a transparent explanation more valuable. It does not make a guarantee, security document or business-purpose declaration less important.
What a proposal must explain
A usable proposal should show the cash available after lender and introducer fees, every repayment, the security and any guarantees. If property or a short maturity is involved, it also needs a credible exit and the cost of delay. Current product evidence did not substantiate the older advertised rates or approval claims, so those are not a basis for this comparison.
For a broader comparison of intermediary services, read Lend or Valiant. The regulatory history here is a reason for careful, documented assessment; it should not be converted into an unsupported numerical safety rating.
Sources and review scope
The sources below support the product discussion and dated history. A historical announcement does not establish current pricing or availability. Where official pages disagree, the difference is identified in the review; the provider's written offer determines approval, costs and contractual obligations.
This is an editorial assessment of published information, not an account of a test application or personal borrowing experience. See about SMB Loan for information about the site.