In the last year alone, ASIC has reported a more than 50 per cent increase in enforcement investigations related to some of Australia’s largest banks.
In an update for the period from September 2019 to February 2020, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission highlighted the 52 per cent increase in enforcement investigations involving CBA, NAB, Westpac, ANZ and AMP – or their officers or subsidiary companies.
There has also been a 10 per cent increase overall in the number of ASIC enforcement investigations.
This is on top of the 13 referrals made to the corporate regulator through the royal commission – two that are the subject of civil penalty litigation, while one is being considered by the Commonwealth director of public prosecutions for potential criminal action.
While three were concluded with no further action being taken, ASIC acknowledged that seven remain under investigation.
Reiterating its stance around the principle of “why not litigate?”, the update outlined that the commission “will continue to use the courts to clarify the law where there is uncertainty”.
Since ASIC created its Office of Enforcement in July 2019, ASIC noted the office “has continued to increase its capacity to investigate and take action in response to market, corporate and financial sector misconduct”.
As at 1 January 2020, ASIC has noted 316 investigations taking place, relating to matters including directors’ and officers’ breaches, insider trading and market manipulation, auditor and liquidator breaches, and breaches of licensing obligations.
ASIC also indicated it is currently prioritising misconduct related to superannuation and insurance, cases that engage ASIC’s new powers or provisions, illegal phoenix activity, auditor misconduct, as well as new or emerging types of misconduct online or using emerging technologies.
ASIC said it will “also always prioritise taking action on certain types of misconduct”.
It highlighted significant market misconduct, misconduct that is serious by its nature or extent of harm, misconduct carrying a high risk of significant consumer harm, and criminal conduct by individuals, or governance failures at a board or executive level.
The commission outlined that it remains focused “on enhanced supervision of the financial services sector to promote enduring cultural and behavioural change and fair outcomes for consumers”.
It also highlighted its response to “emerging issues as they arise – for example, in our coordinated response to the recent bushfire crisis”.
About the author
Join the nestegg community
We Translate Complicated Financial Jargon Into Easy-To-Understand Information For Australians
Your email address will be shared with nestegg and subject to our Privacy Policy
About the author
Join The Nest Egg community
We Translate Complicated Financial Jargon Into Easy-To-Understand Information For Australians
Your email address will be shared with nestegg and subject to our Privacy Policy
Got a problem with your financial service provider? It’s worth complaining
The Consumer Data Right is now live: What does this mean?
Shelter from the storm: Australians find sanctuary with big 4
Junk insurance class actions claim another bank
CBA to cough up $5 million for customer failings
Westpac blames poor judgement for money laundering breaches
most viewed
Investment insights
15 financial habits of wealthy people
Economy
8 factors set to impact the economy into 2021
Tax refund
3m Aussies ‘now on notice’: ATO uses COVID-19 data
Superannuation
Flexing in the new financial year: Super system to see changes
Listen to
What the heck is with robots and tech - ETFs explained
More podcasts
Find super’s sweet spot
Website Notifications
Get notifications in real-time for staying up to date with content that matters to you.