Now you see crackdown on banking fraudsters … now you don’t

Hidden in the fine print of the planned overhaul of financial misconduct penalties is the Federal Government’s consent to removing imprisonment as punishment for 375 offences under the Corporations Act.

Known as “strict and absolute liability offences”, they relate mostly to the provision of information to the public and the regulator, compliance with Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and court/tribunal directions, and the holding of funds on behalf of others, according to the ASIC taskforce.

The taskforce provided the 50 recommendations behind the Government’s stricter penalties for financial breaches. But ASIC, itself, said it did not agree with dropping jail for white-collar criminals convicted of the specified 375 offences.

Unfortunately, the regulator was overruled by the taskforce. In addition to a variety of mandarins, the taskforce ‘expert’ panellists were as follows: Gerard Brody from the Consumer Action Law Centre (who told YourLifeChoices he personally agreed with ASIC’s position), Stuart Clark from legal firm Clayton Utz, Ross Freeman from legal firm Minter Ellison, Pamela Hanrahan and Dimity Kingsford Smith from the University of New South Wales and Ian Ramsay from the University of Melbourne.

Another curious recommendation supported by the Government is that there should be ‘appropriate limits’ to private litigants accessing material seized by ASIC under search warrants.

Do you think that placing limits on access to material could disrupt any potential class action against the Big Four banks and AMP?

14 comments

What is meant by a "variety of mandarins?" Are you saying the taskforce consisted of a variety of people from China? 

Olga's confused. She's not comparing apples to apples

You should watch this piece od scum being interviewed -- why the --- hell can't they ANSWER the bloody questions --

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-22/odwyer-refuses-to-concede-governmen-wrong-on-royal-commission/9685012

Australian shares finished higher on Monday, led by positive performances from the banks. 

The market had been expected to drop amid the fallout from the banking royal commission but instead, the S&P/ASX 200 Index finished up 17.2 points, or 0.3 per cent, to 5886.

 

Ill be glad when this  circus is over . CBA Needs to get back over $80 and NAB over $35

the poor share price is not good for pensioners 

Government Protectionism of the worst kind ! While shoplifters and other white collar criminals are sent to jail, these banking fraudsters are spared jail time.

"Appropriate limits" preventing litigants from taking full on potential class action is also Protectonism. 

It seems that this government and its manadarin task force are aiding and abetting the banking fraudsters. Through such actions, it is making a mockery of the wrongs and the injustice perpetrated against banking and insurance customers. 

This is not acceptable, it is unreasonable and it is against community expectations.

 

It depends on whether you want to fix the problem or you hope to acheive revenge?

If the desired outcome is to change the culture of banks, then simply gaoling people may not do that.

Shouldnt we be hoping to acheive a stronger banking system with a more desirable culture? Off loading risk and wealth creation business would be a very good start.

BTW, sure you may find a few mandarins in the banking business but that is a good thing. Isnt it?

I don't agree. You prove a crime, you fine and send to jail. Then you improve the banking culture by setting the criminal sentence examples. Anything else is just patronising, wrist slapping, a whitewash and a joke .

I dont see any criminal acts so far by the banks that warrant jail time, do you ?

Don't let your prejuduce cloud your mind. So far except for a couple of practices that demand censure and maybe fines , everything else looks pretty above board

Granted their procedures and training of front line staff and advisers need to be improved

 

So Raphael, obatining a financial advantage or causing a financial disadvantage is not a crime? You better read section 192D of the Crimes ACT and 192E and 192 G.

Then come back to earth.

You don't see any criminal acts !!!!!?????

I don't know what the hell you would call what the banks have done AND those that were against the enquiry bloody crook the lot of them.

PlanB - what did the big 4 actually do to intentionally defraud their customers?

The big 4 were charging their customers way over the limit for interest -- UNTIL the customers got onto it themselves  -- they were also lending money to those that had NO chance of paying it back and were in for a lot of interest on Credit cards -- also they were also stating on home loans that people were were earning WAY over what they were really earning so allowing them to borrow a lot more than they can afford if and WHEN the interest rates go up.   Thats just a few things there are many more.

These politicians that are saying they were wrong to have NO choice as they have been PROVED wrong,  they KNEW what was going on -- they have been caught out and will say they were wrong to get back in the voters good books --

"Limits on access to material" - of course, another instance of poetic justice is it ? Or yet another case of closing ranks to protect the old boys network.... 'you'll be right mate, we'll look after you', nudge, nudge , wink, wink, say no more. Whatever happened to silverback Scomo's vapid assurances ?

Some people have blinkers on when it comes to the banks, they can't or don't want to believe that the banks can do anything wrong. I wonder if these people have shares in these financial institutions and this is the reason they don't want to acknowledge any wrongdoing as they are worried the share prices will go down.

 

The probability of the government's and the mandarin's taskforce conflict of interest is mind boggling. Why wouldn't you rip open the entire can of financial institution's worms if you didn't have any vested interest?

There is no can of worms 

so far only AMP has been found to have done anything that may be illegal

the big 4 banks so far have been found to have nothing untoward 

So DA, the NAB forging clients' signatures is not "illegal."

Are you out on parole???

Let's be very clear. The Banks have done nothing wrong. However, there could be a case against some employees of some banks.

 Posters here are showing enormous bias when they refer to "banks breaking the law."

Some of you want us to believe that if a customer signature was forged then the entire bank was in on it.

Yes Misty I agree, some people do have blinkers.

 

The forging per se did was not intended to defraud the clients

it was due to sheer laziness in the part of some employees to ensure sllndicinents were signed by the client eg beneficiary forms 

Banks also change the goal posts -- ie -- the rewards credit cards -- at first it was earn 5000 reward points and you get $50 now it has gone to having to earn 12.500 reward point b4 you get $50  -- that alone is darn dishonest

So how's life in that galaxy world that you exist in?

They threw him out. Now he is "spaced out" haha

 

We live in a crooked world and Australia is right up there next to Africa. Hasher punishments for those found to guilty might help but if everyone left the big four and joined the bank of Bendigo for example that would hurt them in the pocket.

I see raffy / brocky is on the weed again lol

ROFLMAO good one!

So Raphael, charging people for things they didn't get, especially when said persons were dead, isn't a crime.

Mmmm, like to see you trying it and see what happens!

You didnt read my post - none of the big 4 banks did that 

When politicians send money to dead people in order to get their vote isnt a crime either but it should be.

 

I’m guessing the two dunderheads above who spout the glories of the cheating heads of banks have never heard of “Vicarious Liability”.

If they had, they wouldn’t look like such fools.Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions of their employees, while they are in their employ. So yep, the banks, the CEOs, the managers are all vicariously aiding and abetting the wrong doing of their employees. No question, they should be penalised according to the degree of their involvement.

 

Image result for bank executives pooping on the heads of employees clipart

Related image Love the corporate chart.

Thats true in your case micha.

Everyone above you , you see as an asshole because you need to wipe the shit off your face and see more clearly. lol

Why be so negative about people who have succeded where you have failed?

Good one Adrianus

Image result for roflmao gif

Ahhh, the two goons again. Now Adrianus, it's because I have succeeded and am on easy street that I can help those who have shit thrown at them. 

You two have no concept of business, you're just shit stirring, a past time which suits you both so well.

I love seeing you make fools of yourselves, hahahah

Image result for roflmao gif

Remember ole boys : Vicarious Liability. Study it!

Adrianus - best to ignore the fool. Micha aka Mr Google

anyone who studied law at uni understands that there are caveats to vicarious liability or contributory negligence or any other assignement of tort 

Still waiting to hear what losses the big 4 banks customers incurred that resulted from a criminal act by one of the big 4 banks employees

In case you two lovebirds missed what I said above, here's a recap!

Image result for vicarious liability

Have a bonza day! I'm going to play a bit of two up, it's legal today!

The corporate chart. is so darn right

Yes PlanB, if you see it that way, then it is right for you. But I do find it rather odd that discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, and profiling of a minority group, only seems to work in one direction?

 

Absolutely correct Micha, and may I say I like your corporate chart!

As for those who have  shares in AMP, fasten your seat belts, could be a very bumpy ride.

The Commonwealth, Westpac and NAB banks could also face the courts over multiple breaches of the Corporations Act.

All about time too.

Yes Raphael, everyone (employees & employers included) knows about vicarious liability. I first came accross it in my 20s, but I will be the first to admit that I am unsure about its application under varying circumstances and torts. For now I will leave that matter of law to the experts. To those who know all about business (lol) and the law. 

 

Adrianus,

Your comments are, as ever, calm, reasoned and intelligent.

... better than the hysterical, knee jerk reactions so often seen on this forum.

 

 

Quote Raphael: "anyone who studied law at uni understands that there are caveats to vicarious liability or contributory negligence or any other assignement of tort"

What a lot of gobbledygook, what are you trying to say? You make no sense. Obviously you didn't study law anywhere, otherwise you'd know the difference between "crime" and "tort" and would be familiar with how, when and where caveats can be used.

 

Teaching: Perhaps it's time to listen to those at the frontline

14 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment