Hello Vince
Thanks for the question.
Whilst appreciating the sub-sale mechanism that can be applicable from a stamp duty perspective when an “or nominee” clause is activated, I take the view that from a SIS Act perspective, the super fund is acquiring the residential property from the vendor (not the fund member that signed the contract of sale).
Having said that, if certain criteria are satisfied the utilisation of an “or nominee” clause in Victoria will not attract double duty.
Accordingly, I don’t see the acquisition being a breach of section 66 on the basis that there is not an “acquisition of an asset from a related party of the fund”.
I do note that the nomination of the super fund as purchaser, if I have understood the facts correctly, was done after the super fund paid the 10% deposit.  With the benefit of hindsight the nomination should have occurred before the deposit was made.
Is there any paperwork/documentation (other than the nomination form) to support the conclusion that at the time the deposit was made, that the super fund was indeed the intended purchaser of the property?
Would be pleased to hear the views of other fund auditors on this matter.
Best regards
The Auditors Institute