The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has agreed that changing the name of a crowd-sourced funding platform from TMeffect Pty Limited to Bankrolla is unlikely to mislead investors into believing it is a bank. In so doing, the AAT's deputy president Stephen Frost challenged APRA's guidelines governing use of the word "bank" and other variations of the word; and he also reset expectations about the inherent risks of crowdfunding versus bank deposits for retail investors in particular.In the decision, handed down last month, Frost said: "Making proper allowance for the wide range of people who may end up being within the 'likely audience', I am comfortably satisfied that there is little risk that the public will be confused into thinking the applicant is a bank if it is permitted to use the name 'Bankrolla'."The word 'bankroller' is not suggestive of banking activity, its somewhat playful adaptation 'bankrolla' even less so. Only the quite unusually stupid would think a business with that name satisfies the same level of capital adequacy, depositor-priority and other prudential requirements that apply to ADIs."In applying to APRA for consent to the name change, TMeffect director Matthew Pinter explained that the nature of the service is, via its website, "to match investors (both wholesale and retail) and company issuers via our intermediation service, in accordance with the regulations and licence conditions provided under the [crowd-sourced funding amendments to the Corporations Act]. … "Bankrolla will act as intermediary to the offer and acceptance of shares, receipting money (via Westpac escrow), applying cooling off, caps and other conditions. The successful conclusion of which will result in funding for the issuer, share allotment to the investors and a small commission for Bankrolla."The case arose as, under the Banking Act, it is an offence to use the word 'bank' in relation to a financial business, without consent from APRA. It was agreed by all parties that the proposed activity of operating as a crowd-sourced funding intermediary is "carrying on a financial business" in the Banking Act's parlance. APRA's consent to the name change was therefore required.In refusing consent, and in a reconsideration of that decision, APRA staff referred to their guidelines, which stated that the use of a restricted word (or words) in relation to a financial business "should be limited to ADIs and like-regulated institutions, unless there are exceptional circumstances." Frost was particularly critical of this aspect of APRA's decision, taking exception to the implication that "the use of restricted words by non-ADIs is 'inherently confusing and likely to mislead potential customers'. In other words, confusion is a given. It is not left to the delegate to decide ...""The purpose of the restriction is obviously the protection of the public. If an entity calls itself a bank then consumers are likely to think it is a bank," he observed."The business will undoubtedly involve the receipt and payment of money. That is something that banks do. But the applicant proposes to undertake those activities only under the newly created, well-defined, and heavily controlled