ASIC reject claims of undermining inquiry

ASIC senate Senate Economics Committee

23 June 2023
| By Laura Dew |
image
image image
expand image

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has unequivocally rejected claims that it tried to undermine a Senate inquiry.

The inquiry, chaired by Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, was tasked with examining the capacity and capability of ASIC to undertake proportionate investigation and enforcement action arising from reports of alleged misconduct. 

In a report this week, the committee said ASIC had been reluctant to disclose information during the inquiry. 

“Rather than engaging with the committee in a transparent and accountable manner, from the outset ASIC has chosen to attempt to undermine and influence the process of the inquiry before evidence had been gathered or hearings held,” it said.

In an opening statement today to the Senate economics references committee (Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement) inquiry, chair Joe Longo noted the regulator had opened 104 out of 109 questions posed.

“ASIC unequivocally rejects any assertion of an intent to obfuscate or obstruct the committee. There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. Nor is there any evidence to support the assertion that ASIC attempted to undermine and influence the process of the inquiry from the outset,” it said.

“ASIC is taking an open, constructive, and cooperative approach to this inquiry. We have provided a detailed submission to the inquiry which sets out our approach to investigations and enforcement. This has included how we develop our priorities to target areas we consider to be of greatest regulatory harm and how we assess reports of potential misconduct and other intelligence sources, to identify matters for investigation and possible enforcement actions.”

It said releasing information about closed investigations could still prejudice ASIC’s related and future investigations and adversely impact people who had assisted ASIC as well as unfairly prejudice people who have been subject of ASIC investigations.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Submitted by awolfend on Fri, 2023-06-23 15:39

A regulator funded by enforcement action... enforcing technical breaches rather than actual client harm, who has proved willing to punish smaller firms but is reticent to tackle anyone with deep pockets and good lawyers - and been caught at it. Why would they be keen to answer questions transparently?

ASIC need solid oversight AND serious changes based on detailed review and analysis of how best to serve the institutions they regulate and the public supposedly they protect.

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

1 month 3 weeks ago

This verdict highlights something deeply wrong and rotten at the heart of the FSCP. We are witnessing a heavy-handed, op...

1 month 4 weeks ago

Interesting. Would be good to know the details of the StrategyOne deal....

2 months ago

SuperRatings has shared the median estimated return for balanced superannuation funds for the calendar year 2024, finding the year achieved “strong and consistent positiv...

2 weeks 1 day ago

Original bidder Bain Capital, which saw its first offer rejected in December, has returned with a revised bid for Insignia Financial....

1 week 1 day ago

The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would a...

6 days 8 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS