Investigations and enforcement
Overview of Part III
Of ASIC's many and varied responsibilities, it is ASIC's
discretionary role of investigating and taking enforcement action in response
to alleged contraventions
of the laws it administers that is the most high-profile and controversial
aspect of ASIC's work.
This report has already begun examining ASIC's performance in
relation to its enforcement responsibilities through the two case studies outlined
in Part II.
These case studies highlighted issues with specific cases. Some of the concerns
identified, however, have wide application; for example, the experience of the
CFPL whistleblowers is relevant to all corporate whistleblowers.
This part of the report draws on multiple cases and general
observations to undertake a broader study of ASIC's enforcement record. In
particular, it considers how ASIC receives and assesses misconduct reports,
conducts an investigation, decides whether to pursue a particular case and how its
enforcement action is conducted.
A selection of significant enforcement matters that ASIC has
been involved in over the past five or more years can be found at Appendix 5. This
selection may assist
the reader understand ASIC's enforcement record and the varied nature of
misconduct that the regulator may need to pursue. The matters outlined are the
James Hardie litigation, Australian Wheat Board, Centro, the case against
Andrew Forrest and Fortescue, ABC Learning, various collapsed property finance
schemes, mortgage funds and debenture issuers, Opes Prime, Storm Financial,
Stuart Ariff and Trio Capital. These cases may have been referred to in
submissions and by witnesses at the public hearings, and may be noted in the
report where relevant, but they are not examined in detail. Many of these cases
have already been the subject of a parliamentary inquiry or extensive public
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page