Enforcement

It's not the best way to start the week, much less the month. The first notice from Australian regulator The Australian Securities and Investment Commission tells that Macquarie Securities (Australia) Limited has been issued a penalty notice : ASIC "believes" the company "contravened" market integrity rules. The failure was of design, implementation and maintenance of compliance systems, not an intention to not comply, ASIC says. Plus ça change in so much of the financial sector, then.

A solicitor (attorney) who was advising a company on a proposed purchase of a large stake in another company has been accused of using non-public information to make share transactions and profit therefrom.

Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission has suspended the former responsible officer of China Merchants Securities (HK) Co., Limited for compliance failures.

Hong Kong's Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has reprimanded Guosen Securities (HK) Brokerage Company, Limited (Guosen) and fined it HKE15.2 million for failures in complying with Counter-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing (CFT) regulatory requirements when handling third party fund deposits

Following an ASIC investigation, the Federal Court of Australia has wound up Australian financial services Licensee CFS Private Wealth Pty Ltd and Combined Financial Solutions Pty Ltd, a corporate authorised representative of CFS Private Wealth, and restrained its director, Graeme Walter Miller, from providing financial services for 25 years. Miller is also disqualified from managing corporations for three years.

Another day, another judgment against an Australian banking group for misconduct. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission's civil action against two WestPac group companies ended with findings of fault - but, again, ASIC has not succeeded on grounds upon which it thought it was safe. Spoiler alert: the case was commenced before the start of the Royal Commission on Misconduct in Banking, etc.

Maybe Floyd Mayweather has been hit in the head too many times. The USA's Securities and Exchange Commission describes him as "a well-known professional boxer." The "well-known" bit is perhaps an understatement: his social media "reach" in 2017 was huge: 21 million "followers" on Instagram, 7.8m on Twitter and 13.4 m on Facebook. So when he said "hey, this is a good idea," it carried far more weight than his slight frame. When people talk about "fame" and "fortune," they might have been talking about Mayweather's return to the ring for one fight only but he used that fame to be paid for boosting crypto-currency ICOs.

Sydney-based authorised representative Eli Ekman, of Dover Heights, NSW, has been prohibited from providing any financial services in any capacity for five years, under the terms of a court-enforceable undertaking (EU), said Australian financial services regulator ASIC in a statement this week. His offence is unusual.

In 2011, Moody’s Investors Service Hong Kong Limited which along with many associated companies is generally known only as "Moody's," and which has forgone the sobriquet "ratings agency" in favour of the much more honest "ratings organisation", issued a document entitled "Red Flags for Emerging-Market Companies: A Focus on China." Ignoring, for the sake of simplicity, that the document referred to warning signs and not red flags in the true sense, it contained material that the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) decided was not apt. That started a battle which continues.

It's one of the quickest settlements that the USA's Securities and Accounts Commission will ever see. On 27th September, civil proceedings were started. That was Thursday. The proceedings were, it has to be said, no surprise but while the "what" was expected, the "when" was unknown. After all, American prosecutors and regulators enjoy the glare of publicity and trying their cases in the court of public opinion long before they ever get to a court room. But Elon Musk, who is increasingly demonstrating deteriorating judgement in so many ways, is nothing if not decisive. On Saturday, 29th September, the SEC issued a statement: the SEC and Musk had settled and Musk didn't do anywhere near as badly as the SEC had applied for. But there is a sting in the tail.

This morning some media is abuzz with news of an AUD700m settlement between ASIC and Commonwealth Bank of Australia, sometimes known as "CommBank" and sometimes as "CBA". CBA was first out of the stocks with its press release. Then AUSTRAC released the draft Order that will be put before the Court in settlement. What jumped out?

Australia's Royal Commission into financial services has criticised the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (same word, different meaning) in relation to so-called enforceable undertakings. There is a problem but in part it's caused by factors outside ASIC's control.

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority has, far too late, waded into the scandal over businesses that offer completely unnecessary, and very costly, services relating to the mis-selling of Personal Protection Insurance. The industry around selling what amounts to little more than form-filling assistance and which has collected in excess of GBP1,000 million, has force-fed advertising and is now ramping up the pressure on those who have not yet made a claim. The FCA has countered with its own advert. It's rubbish and in the wrong place.

Hardly a day goes by without a report of bad conduct by one of Australia's banks. It's not as if there are many of them and the result is that each of them is in the news for all the wrong reasons on an increasingly frequent basis. This time it's ANZ with a classic of charging fees but providing no service.

Really. How is this different from someone knocking on the door of an elderly couple, telling them there's a hole in their roof and saying "I'll repair it for a price of X" but collecting the money and doing nothing?

It's going to cost ANZ about AUD5 million to compensate victims of the scheme that operated through the bank's Esanda car finance business. That's just part of what ASIC describes as "a package of regulatory actions against Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (ANZ)" But there's an anomaly of the kind that excites our colleagues on the financial crime publications group of PleaseBeInformed. But we got to this one first! Even more, the story looks like a simple management failure but on closer inspection it demonstrates a fundamental lack of attention to the most basic money laundering / terrorist financing KYC/CDD requirements. ASIC may think it's over. AUSTRAC needs to take a look.