ASIC’s penalty structure lags globally
Australia’s corporate regulator is severely limited in the range and severity of penalties it can hand out for wrongdoing - particularly compared to the US and UK, a review has concluded.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) could be letting the public down due to its restrictions on prison terms and fines, the regulator’s first penalty structure review in more than a decade has concluded.
US regulators are able to dole out significantly longer prison terms for similar crimes, the review found, with sentences of up to 20 years for insider trading, market manipulation and fraud.
In Australia, ASIC can inflict maximum prison terms of up to 10 years, which places it on a par with Canada and Hong Kong.
However, when it came to individual fines, penalties for crimes like disclosure and unlicensed conduct are capped at $34,000, compared with more than $5 million for Canada and the US, or unlimited in the UK.
Unlike its global counterparts, ASIC also does not have a disgorgement penalty at its disposal, which would force wrongdoers to pay back penalties earned dishonestly.
Commenting on the review, ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft said: “The public expects ASIC to take strong action against serious corporate wrongdoers. Those who break the law and cause severe damage should face tough penalties”.
The findings from the REP 387 review will be presented to the Financial System Inquiry.
Recommended for you
ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland has detailed the regulator’s intentions to conduct surveillance on licensees and advisers who are recommending managed accounts, noting a review is “warranted and timely” given the sector’s growth.
AMP and HUB24 have shared the areas where they are seeking future adviser growth, with HUB24 targeting adding more than 2,000 advisers to the platform.
Bravura Solutions has appointed a new chair and deputy chair to take over from departing Matthew Quinn, while Shezad Okhai picks up another responsibility.
Two advisers say M&A is becoming a “contact sport” as competition heats up to acquire attractive advice firms, while a lack of new entrants creates roadblocks in organic growth opportunities.
