Chapter 23
Options for encouraging better enforcement outcomes
23.1
Several chapters throughout Parts II and III of this report have focused
on ASIC's approach to enforcement. Recommendations were made about steps ASIC
could take to improve the enforcement outcomes it achieves. This chapter
examines the evidence received by the committee that argued there were more
fundamental problems with enforcement beyond ASIC's control, either because of
the legislation that ASIC administers or due to the law enforcement framework of
which ASIC is a part.
Civil and criminal penalties
23.2
The penalties available to ASIC was an issue discussed in several
submissions and at the committee's public hearings. Overall, most considered
that the current penalties were generally insufficient. For example, former
ASIC enforcement adviser Mr Niall Coburn stated:
If thinking of lawbreakers is a tussle between fear versus
greed, then we need penalties to amplify the fear and smother the greed. We
need penalties that create a fear that overcomes any desire to take risks and
break the law.[1]
23.3
As discussed in Chapter 17, some academics and observers argued that
ASIC faces a number of difficulties in pursuing remedies available through the
civil penalty regime for directors' duties. Although several reasons were put
forward as possible contributors to these difficulties, the current penalty
amounts was often cited. A group of academics from Adelaide Law School argued
that despite a recommendation by Finkelstein J in ASIC v Vizard that the
$200,000 upper limit on pecuniary penalties be reviewed,[2]
this has not been addressed. The academics added:
More worryingly, recent cases show that the courts are paying
considerable regard to reputational damage as a substitute for significant
pecuniary penalties. So in ASIC v Healey the non-executive directors
were not subjected to any pecuniary penalty at all despite being found to have
contravened ss 180(1), 344(1) and 601FD(3) of the Corporations Act 2001
(Cth) and the court 'taking into account the seriousness of the offences'. In
the James Hardie litigation the Court of Appeal reduced the pecuniary penalties
imposed by the trial judge from $30 000 to $25 000 for the Australian directors
and to $20 000 for the US directors. The influence of the parity principle
(that similar breaches should attract similar penalties) and the doctrine of
precedent means that it is unlikely that the courts will feel free to depart
from the approaches in these cases without legislative intervention to raise
the upper limit of the pecuniary penalty for an individual above the current
level of $200 000.[3]
23.4
CPA Australia also advised it believed the upper limit of $200,000 was
insufficient. When asked what the limit should be, Mr Malley explained that,
depending on the nature of the offence 'it has to be of such an ilk that it
really does make people think twice':
You need to understand that, if you are dealing in markets
where potentially people earn large amounts of money and the penalty in
material terms is not material, perhaps that is not necessarily a deterrent. I
think society deserves to be protected.
I would also add that there are many directors working in
Australia under some very tough legislation. It is our view—and I should say
this in balance—that there are elements of the Corporations Law that pertain to
directors that are far more difficult here than they are in other countries and
in some ways impractical. I think there needs to be a review of that. But, on
the basis that there is a review, there should also be higher penalties if
there is a fairer scenario for directors in the marketplace.[4]
23.5
ASIC argued that a holistic review of penalties across the corporations
legislation is required. It advised that the current penalties have been in
place for extended periods, with criminal penalties reviewed in a piecemeal way
since they were enacted and civil penalties unchanged since 1992.[5]
ASIC concluded that the current civil penalties under the corporations
legislation:
-
have not kept pace with inflation (they are not linked to penalty
units);
-
regardless of the above, the penalties 'are proportionately low
given the seriousness and impact of civil penalty matters', and when compared
with
the penalties available in other jurisdictions such as the UK and US; and
-
are inconsistent with the penalties in other legislation ASIC
administers, such as the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.[6]
23.6
To illustrate its concern about the size of penalties available in
Australia, ASIC pointed to the fines totalling over $6 billion that JP Morgan
received as part of the 'London Whale' trading scandal. These fines consisted
of £138 million by the UK FCA; US$200 million by the US SEC; US$200
million by the US Federal Reserve; US$309 million by the US CFPB; and
US$300 million by the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. However, ASIC
advised that under the Corporations Act, the maximum penalty applicable for an
offence is $1 million. Further, due to
the 'totality principle':
multiple offences arising out of the same course of conduct
will not usually give rise to a substantially greater penalty than a single
offence. Accordingly, multiple offences cannot attract remotely comparable
civil penalties in Australia, even assuming that the maximum penalty is
applied.[7]
23.7
On 20 March 2014, ASIC released a comparison of penalties available to
ASIC and those available to its foreign counterparts, other Australian
regulators and across the legislation ASIC administers. It concluded that:
-
while ASIC's maximum criminal penalties are broadly consistent
with those available in other countries, there are significantly higher prison
terms in the US, and higher fines in some overseas countries for breaches of
continuous disclosure obligations and unlicensed conduct—for example, the fine
for individuals for unlicensed conduct in Australia is $34,000, whereas in
Hong Kong it is $720,000; in Canada it is $5.25 million; in the United
States it is $5.6 million; and in the United Kingdom there is no limit on the
maximum fine;[8]
-
there is a broader range of civil and administrative penalties in
other countries, and the penalties are higher (see Table 23.1);
-
the maximum civil penalties available to ASIC are lower than
those available to other Australian regulators and are fixed amounts, not
multiples of the financial benefits obtained from wrongdoing; and
-
across ASIC's regime there are differences between the types and
size of penalties for similar wrongdoing (for example, ASIC noted that
providing credit without a licence can attract a civil penalty up to ten times
greater than the criminal fine for providing financial services without a
licence).[9]
Table 23.1: Comparison of civil
and administrative penalties for individuals ($AUD)
Country
|
Insider trading
|
Market manipulation
|
Disclosure
|
False statements
|
Unlicensed conduct
|
Inappropriate advice
|
Australia
|
Civil: $200,000
|
Civil: $200,000
|
Civil: $200,000
|
–
|
–
|
Civil: $200,000
|
Canada
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Administrative: $1.05 million
|
Hong
Kong
|
Administrative: unlimited
|
–
|
Civil: $1.12 million
|
–
|
–
|
Administrative: greater of $1.4 million, or 3
times the benefit gained
|
United
Kingdom
|
Civil and administrative: unlimited
|
Civil and administrative: unlimited
|
Administrative: unlimited
|
Civil and administrative: unlimited
|
–
|
Administrative: unlimited
|
United
States
|
Civil: 3 times the benefit gained*
|
Civil: greater of $111,000, or the benefit gained
|
Civil: greater of $111,000, or the benefit gained
|
Civil: greater of $111,000, or the benefit gained
|
Civil: greater of $111,000, or the benefit gained
|
Administrative: $83,850
|
Notes:
* For
control persons, the maximum non-criminal penalty is the greater of
$AUD1.1 million or three times the benefit obtained.
The
currency conversion to Australian dollars is based on the daily exchange rate
published by the RBA as at 31 December 2013.
Source: ASIC, Penalties for
corporate wrongdoing, Report 387, March 2014, p. 19.
23.8
In addition to its suggestion that civil penalties be set significantly
higher
to better reflect the seriousness of breaches, ASIC argued that the penalties
should adopt the disgorgement feature of the civil penalties imposed in the UK and
the US, where the benefit attributable to the commission of the breach is
removed.[10]
23.9
ASIC concluded that a 'stronger' penalty regime would improve the cost‑effectiveness
of enforcement action by maximising the impact and deterrent effect of such
action.[11]
However, some witnesses suggested that reputational issues carry more weight
than the size of the penalty. For example, the chairman of the Business Law
Section of the Law Council of Australia made the following observation:
It is true that a person weighing up the risks of compliance
and non‑compliance would be thought to have regard for the size of the
penalty. I find with the people I deal with that is not the way they think. The
people we tend to be involved with, and there may well be some segmentation,
are more concerned about reputational issues than the size of a penalty. By and
large, the vast majority of Australians involved in financial markets and
business are trying to do the right thing. I use the example of continuous
disclosure by listed companies, which is a very, very difficult area. There are
judgements that have to be made, and it is very difficult sometimes to be
certain what the right thing to do is because you have to juggle a number of
interests—the interests of the investors in having the information but also
making sure that the information is clear and understandable.[12]
23.10
The reputational aspect of deterrence was also noted by other witnesses
who questioned whether larger financial penalties imposed on corporations would
impact the reputation of the entity involved. Professor Justin O'Brien used the
JP Morgan case to support his view that only imprisonment provides a deterrent
based on reputational consequences:
...JP Morgan agrees to a settlement with the US regulatory authorities
for $13.5 billion; Jamie Dimon gets an 89 per cent pay increase. To what extent
did that impact on his reputation? Well, arguably, you can make the point that
he deserved that increase in his compensation because he reduced the actual
litigation that he might have faced. So even in the United States where you
have huge penalties it does not really have a reputational effect; what ends up
happening is that it becomes part of the price of settlement, and it privileges
what Judge Jed Rakoff, who we brought out to Australia last year, calls 'the
facade of enforcement'. So what really will act as a reputational restraining
force? The threat of jail.[13]
23.11
Others were not convinced that higher penalties were necessary. Although
Professor Baxt acknowledged that there may be specific areas where an increase
in penalties could be warranted, he rejected ASIC's call for greater penalties.
In his view, ASIC 'is not even trying to get the penalties that it can get
under the current law in a sufficiently aggressive and satisfactory way in many
of the problem areas that exist'.[14]
Committee view
23.12
It is important that the penalties contained in legislation provide
both an effective deterrent to misconduct as well as an adequate punishment,
particularly if
the misconduct can result in widespread harm. Insufficient penalties undermine
the regulator's ability to do its job: inadequately low penalties do not
encourage compliance and they do not make regulated entities take threats of
enforcement action seriously. The committee considers that a compelling case has
been made for the penalties currently available for contraventions of the
legislation ASIC administers
to be reviewed to ensure they are set at appropriate levels. In addition,
consideration should be given to designing more responsive monetary penalties,
such as multiple of gain penalties or penalties combined with disgorgement.
Recommendation 41
23.13
The committee recommends that the government commission an inquiry into
the current criminal and civil penalties available across the legislation ASIC
administers. The inquiry should consider:
-
the consistency of criminal penalties, and whether some
comparable offences currently attract inconsistent penalties;
-
the range of civil penalty provisions available in the
legislation ASIC administers and whether they are consistent with other civil
penalties for corporations; and
-
the level of civil penalty amounts, and whether the legislation
should provide for the removal of any financial benefit.
Addressing overlaps in jurisdiction and improving the working relationship
with other enforcement agencies
23.14
The inquiry's terms of reference directed the committee to consider ASIC's
collaboration, and working relationships, with other regulators and law enforcement
bodies. To ensure the law enforcement framework works as it should, the working
relationships between agencies need to be well-functioning and any overlaps in
jurisdiction managed effectively. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants
Australia noted, this is an issue that has received some attention:
In recent years there have been a number of cases where
regulatory agencies are seen to lay responsibility for poor regulatory outcomes
at the feet of other agencies, rather than being seen to operate as one
cohesive group of law enforcement agencies. Effective regulation in today's
modern cross-border business environment will require a much greater degree of
engagement and collaboration between regulators than has perhaps been the case
in the past.
23.15
The ASIC Act[15]
and the memorandums of understanding ASIC has entered into with numerous
domestic[16]
and international[17]
agencies provides a legal and practical framework for ASIC's working
relationship with other regulators and law enforcement agencies. From the
evidence the committee has received, it appears that the Australian Federal
Police (AFP) is the agency ASIC is most likely to encounter overlaps in
jurisdiction with. Mr Chris Savundra of ASIC explained:
We investigate serious financial crime where it pertains to
our jurisdiction, so we are not limited to taking action under the Corporations
Act; we can take action under state and federal criminal laws, and we do.
Equally, the AFP takes corporations law action, such as insider trading. So,
the AFP has previously taken action under the Corporations Act, for both
insider trading and breaches of director's duties, and the reason is the
difference in the use of powers and that issue we raised on the last occasion
around the sharing of information.[18]
23.16
Foreign bribery is one area where ASIC has been subject to scrutiny and
criticism regarding both its enforcement of relevant provisions in the
Corporations Act and how effectively it works with the AFP. The AFP is
responsible for investigating foreign bribery offences,[19]
although directors' duties under the Corporations Act can also be relevant. In
particular, two of the principles expressed in the Federal Court's Centro
decision[20]
are pertinent to allegations of foreign bribery. These principles are
scepticism (directors must question the information put to them) and
accountability and control (an obligation to ensure that systems, protocols and
control exist to ensure sound corporate governance).[21]
23.17
Allegations that two subsidiaries of the RBA, Note Printing Australia
Limited and Securency International Pty Ltd, engaged in foreign bribery during
the 1990s in attempts to secure polymer banknotes contracts have resulted in
criminal charges being brought by the AFP against the companies and several
employees.
In March 2012, ASIC announced that it had decided not to proceed with an
investigation into the Note Printing Australia/Securency allegations. It
released the following statement:
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has provided ASIC with
material relating to bribery allegations concerning Securency International Pty
Ltd and Note Printing Australia Limited.
ASIC considers a range of factors when deciding to
investigate and possibly take enforcement action.
In line with its normal practice, ASIC has reviewed this material
from the AFP for possible directors' duty breaches of the Corporations Act and
has decided not to proceed to a formal investigation.
ASIC intends to make no further comment on this matter.[22]
23.18
An episode of the ABC's Four Corners program broadcast on 30 September 2013,
however, suggested that ASIC did not investigate the directors of these
companies for corporate misconduct. In its response to Four Corners,
ASIC stated that its decision not to investigate followed 'a thorough
assessment of the information', with 'more than 10,000 pages of documents
including several detailed witness statements' reviewed.[23]
ASIC subsequently issued a clarification advising that its assessment only
related to alleged conduct in Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Nepal, and that
it would consider the Iraq allegations raised in the program. However, ASIC
added that 'it must be stressed that a six-year statute of limitations applies
to civil penalty cases'.[24]
In an October 2013 interview, the ASIC chairman added that the two RBA subsidiaries
were propriety companies and that ASIC does not 'normally' pursue
contraventions of the Corporations Act that relate to propriety companies:
Our focus is on listed public companies where in fact, you
know, if we see lots of people losing lots of money into retail investors and
there is a significant market impact, that is where we give priority, where in
fact there is a significant impact on the market or on significantly on retail
investors losing a lot of money.[25]
23.19
Another alleged instance of foreign bribery has also recently been a
matter of public interest. In February 2012, Leighton Holdings Limited
announced that it was aware of possible contraventions of Australian laws
relating to payments that may have been made in connection to work on facilities
for Iraq's crude oil exports, and that it had alerted the AFP.[26]
A series of media articles published in October 2013 alleged that internal
documents of Leighton Holdings revealed a corporate culture that resulted in
bribery, corruption and cover-up being 'rife' and known to certain directors
and senior management.[27]
In response, Leighton issued a statement advising that
it continues to cooperate with the AFP and that it was 'not aware of any new
allegations or instances of breach of our ethics'.[28]
The Leighton allegations have resulted in commentators questioning the approach
taken by ASIC and how effectively it works with the AFP, particularly given the
concerns about this relationship in the context of the Securency/Note Printing
Australia matter.[29]
23.20
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Working Group on Bribery conducts a cycle of reviews to monitor and assess the
structures established by parties to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, such as
Australia. The most recent report on Australia was released in October 2012.
The Working Group concluded that it had 'serious concerns that overall
enforcement of the foreign bribery offence to date has been extremely low' in
Australia. It provided the following reasoning:
Only one foreign bribery case has led to prosecutions. These
prosecutions were commenced in 2011 and are on-going. Out of 28 foreign bribery
referrals that have been received by the Australian Federal Police (AFP),
21 have been concluded without charges.[30]
23.21
The OECD Working Group also expressed concern about communication
between the AFP and ASIC, suggesting that miscommunication 'may have left
important aspects of foreign bribery cases uninvestigated'.[31]
It recommended that the AFP and ASIC should develop a clearer written framework
that outlines each agencies responsibilities and how the agencies would work
together on foreign bribery cases:
The AFP has MOUs with other agencies (e.g. the CDPP) but not
with ASIC that would apply to the referral of foreign bribery cases. At various
points in [the] on-site visit, the AFP stated that the Securency/NPA was
referred to ASIC because these matters were "better managed by ASIC",
that they were "better fit" for ASIC, or that ASIC could obtain
"a better outcome". Why referral was "better" was not
explained in concrete terms. In any event, these statements by the AFP and ASIC
at the on-site visit about case referral and acceptance are not clearly
reflected in written policies or agreements between the two bodies.[32]
23.22
The OECD Working Group made recommendations regarding ASIC, noting that ASIC
is 'in a prime position to interact with companies that may commit foreign
bribery' and that 'its experience and expertise in investigating corporate
economic crimes' should be utilised to assist the AFP to prevent, detect and
investigate cases of foreign bribery.[33]
In a submission to this inquiry, Associate Professor Kath Hall of the
Australian National University's Faculty of Law argued that ASIC should take a
more active role in corporate corruption, noting that ASIC has stronger powers
in relation to directors' duties than the US or UK regulators.[34]
23.23
Since the OECD report, ASIC has signed an MOU with the AFP that
addresses investigations of alleged foreign bribery.[35]
Also, in a speech given in October 2013, the ASIC chairman responded to concern
about ASIC's role in investigating allegations of foreign bribery. The chairman
described much of the media reports as being 'ill-informed in describing ASIC's
role'[36]
and emphasized that ASIC would not act in a way that would jeopardise an AFP
criminal investigation.
In his speech, the ASIC chairman:
-
stated that directors' duties investigations would ordinarily
occur after any criminal investigation given that defendants in prosecutions
have a 'right to silence' which is protected by courts delaying any civil
proceedings until the criminal case is completed;
-
argued that the prison term and fine available under the Criminal
Code (along with the automatic ban from being a director that comes with
conviction) is a greater deterrent than proceedings initiated under the
Corporations Act; and
-
noted that parallel investigations are difficult to manage.[37]
23.24
However, Mr Medcraft did outline the circumstances in which ASIC would
run a parallel bribery investigation examining alleged breaches of directors'
duties.
In addition to the factors ordinarily considered when deciding whether to take
enforcement action—namely the extent of the harm or loss, the cost versus the
regulatory benefit and the available evidence—specific factors ASIC would
consider when assessing whether to proceed with a bribery investigation are:
-
if there is a risk the six year time limitation for civil
proceedings will prevent ASIC bringing proceedings;
-
the impact of the conduct on the market and retail investors,
including whether the conduct is ongoing or the relevant directors are still on
the board;
-
if the bribery materially damages the company;
-
if the bribery involves a publicly listed company;
-
if ASIC's investigation will not adversely impact AFP's criminal
investigation; and
-
whether ASIC considers that AFP action alone is an appropriate
response.[38]
23.25
Mr Medcraft told the committee that in his view, the problem with
pursuing foreign bribery cases is not the particular agency that pursues the
matter, but obtaining the evidence in the foreign jurisdiction.[39]
Proposal for a Serious Fraud Office
23.26
One proposal that provoked discussion at the committee's public hearings
was the suggestion that a Serious Fraud Office be established in Australia.[40]
Serious Fraud Offices exist in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, and it was pointed
out that a similar model could be adopted here. Potentially, a Serious Fraud
Office could address the overlap in responsibilities between ASIC and the AFP and,
given the AFP's priorities in other areas of law enforcement, could ensure that
white collar crime cases receive sufficient attention from specialist staff.
23.27
When questioned about the proposal, Mr Greg Tanzer of ASIC identified
that an advantage of the Serious Fraud Office model is that resources are
quarantined
to target a particular activity, instead of an agency with diverse
responsibilities being required to prioritise its resources. However, Mr Tanzer
suggested that the framework could lead to 'hand offs', where cases are
referred between various law enforcement agencies.[41]
Mr Medcraft added that establishing another agency creates the risk of
fragmentation and that, assuming additional funding is not available, the
funding for the new organisation would have to come from the existing agencies
such as ASIC.[42]
ASIC's preferred model is a whole-of-government response using existing
agencies, such as Project Wickenby.[43]
23.28
The potential adverse consequences associated with fragmentation were
also addressed by other witnesses. During her appearance before the committee,
Professor Dimity Kingsford Smith concentrated on how ASIC's enforcement role
can inform its other regulatory tasks:
Very often a regulator can lead with new policies, new
supervision, new focuses, and risk-weighting of which kind of financial
organisation needs more scrutiny. That can come from the data they collect from
complaints and their experience of enforcement. If there was to be
restructuring of ASIC's enforcement activity it would have to be, very
carefully, on the basis that the learning that ASIC can obtain from the
undertaking of investigations and the execution of enforcement is not lost to
them.[44]
23.29
Other academics also mulled over Australia's framework of law
enforcement agencies for financial crime. Professor Justin O'Brien acknowledged
that there are examples of protocols that have not been effective, however, in
his view there is not necessarily a problem with different agencies having
overlapping responsibilities if effective protocols can be developed.[45]
He also noted that following the Libor scandal in the UK it has been recognised
that the Serious Fraud Office did not have the 'expertise or the competence' in
financial markets matters. As a result a process of secondments between the
Financial Conduct Authority and the Serious Fraud Office has commenced.[46]
23.30
As this inquiry progressed, the creation of a Serious Fraud Office was
also discussed in other forums. In a paper presented in October 2013, Justice
Mark Weinburg of the Supreme Court of Victoria's Court of Appeal, and a former Commonwealth
Director of Public Prosecutions, expressed his view that the creation of a
Serious Fraud Office would be 'an entirely retrograde step':
The [Serious Fraud Office] both investigates, and prosecutes,
cases involving serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption. Its record in
that regard is somewhat mixed. It has always seemed to me to be highly
desirable that the investigative and prosecutorial functions be kept entirely
separate from each other...My experience as a former Commonwealth Director was
that even the most able of investigators could find themselves caught up in the
fervour of a case, with which they may have had close involvement for months
and perhaps years, and therefore unable to consider objectively the prospects
of a successful prosecution. I should add that, in my opinion, prosecutors
seldom make good investigators.[47]
Committee view
23.31
The committee is pleased that the AFP and ASIC have entered into a new
memorandum of understanding. While these agreements may simply reflect existing
arrangements, they promote public confidence by demonstrating that a formal
framework designed to foster a sound and cooperative relationship between these
agencies now exists, and that both agencies, through the process of developing
the memorandum of understanding, have considered how they can work together
more effectively.
23.32
Proposals for changing the current institutional framework for
investigating and prosecuting certain offences were contemplated by the
committee. Such proposals need to be studied carefully: fragmented and unclear
arrangements can create further overlaps in jurisdiction and undermine established
acceptable principles associated with prosecutions. The creation of a Serious
Fraud Office could have some benefits, particularly if doing so resulted in a
more effective law enforcement response to serious or complex fraud, bribery
and corruption. It is evident, however, that even with a Serious Fraud Office
appropriate protocols and frameworks for sharing expertise and staff still need
to be in place. It appears to the committee that the problems identified with
the current framework that relate to the resources and priorities of the
existing agencies are not issues that the creation of an additional agency would
solve.
23.33
As the committee has been tasked with the examining the performance of
one agency, ASIC, the committee is not recommending the establishment of a
Serious Fraud Office. This proposal would require the entire law enforcement
institutional framework to be considered. Nevertheless, the committee is of the
view that there needs to be a shake-up of how complex fraud, bribery and corruption
is addressed in Australia. There has been considerable public discussion about
the perceived failure of ASIC and the AFP to address such cases effectively.
Instead of having a deterrent effect, the committee is concerned that the
current arrangements send the wrong message about the likelihood of these cases
being pursued. It is essential that the law enforcement framework promotes
confidence in Australia's corporate and financial institutions. Australia's
growing pool of superannuation savings provides an attractive target for fraud
and the amounts involved can be significant: the Trio Capital fraud alone resulted
in losses of around $176 million.[48]
The current size and likely growth of Australia's financial sector, the
importance of this sector to all Australians and the complexity and
time-consuming nature of serious fraud and corruption investigations compared
to other criminal cases means that it is imperative that the government clearly
demonstrates that it has zero tolerance for financial crime.
23.34
The committee urges the government to consider these issues further and,
in the interim, to ensure that relevant enforcement agencies, the CDPP and the
courts are adequately resourced to meet the community's expectations of law
enforcement and to facilitate the swift delivery of justice. The establishment
of a Project Wickenby‑type multi‑agency taskforce might be an ideal
start.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page