Tuesday, March 9, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
    • Compliance & Risk
    • Information Security
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Has the Road to Settlement Gotten Bumpier?

The Impact on Domestic and International Corporates Arising From Australia's Banking Royal Commission

by Wendy Wysong
March 19, 2019
in Compliance, Featured
bumpy road in black and white

The Banking Royal Commission (BRC) focused its attention on Australian banks when investigating misconduct in the financial services industry, but the fallout from the BRC’s recent report will likely be felt much farther afield. Experts from Clifford Chance discuss.

with co-authors Lara Gotti, Kirsten Scott, Jenni Hill

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Banking Royal Commission, or BRC) has been in Australian media headlines since the Commission was established on December 14, 2017. On February 4, 2019, the widely anticipated final report from Commissioner Hayne was released.

While Australian banks were BRC’s focus, international institutions watched with keen interest and made submissions to ensure their voices were heard, anticipating that the resulting regulations for financial institutions would be far stricter and structured.

However, the impact is not limited to the financial sector. Commissioner Hayne recommended a change to the regulators’ enforcement approach, which may transform the perceived soft touch of the country’s principal corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

For overseas companies operating in Australia, these changes may impact future engagements with the Australian regulator and the prospects of global settlements where multiple regulators are involved.

The Findings

What did the Commissioner have to say about ASIC’s enforcement culture?

The Commissioner’s underlying theme in considering ASIC’s enforcement measures was that ASIC should always ask “why not litigate?” The Commissioner criticized ASIC’s deeply entrenched culture of negotiating outcomes rather than insisting upon “public denunciation of, and punishment for, wrongdoing” to adequately deter misconduct.

So, will ASIC still consider settlement?

The Commissioner stated, “if ASIC has a reasonable prospect of proving contravention of the law, the starting point for its consideration … must be that the consequences of contravention should be determined by a Court.” This does not mean that negotiated resolutions are prohibited or that ASIC is limited to only civil proceedings that will succeed.

Rather, when ASIC starts enforcement proceedings, the outcome sought “must always be to demonstrate the alleged contravention and have the Court impose a proper penalty.”

Enforceable undertakings (EU), often viewed as a useful settlement tool, are still available. However, the Commissioner recommended that ASIC recognize “the relevance and importance of general and specific deterrence in deciding whether to accept an enforceable undertaking (EU) and the utility in obtaining admissions in EUs.” The Commissioner suggested that ASIC should generally not accept an EU without an acknowledgement by the regulated entity that it has breached specific legislative provisions.

What is ASIC’s Response?

ASIC accepted Commissioner Hayne’s position, indicating that it will implement all 12 non-legislative recommendations. In addition to the 13 specific referrals made to ASIC during the BRC, ASIC has announced that it has a further 12 active investigations and 16 case studies to determine if investigations should be pursued against both banks and their senior executives.

The Road Ahead

While settlements are not off the table, it is likely that they will be harder to achieve. ASIC’s increased cooperation with overseas regulators, as evidenced particularly in the fintech and regtech space, will also need to be considered, as ASIC may no longer be willing to take the lead from more dominant overseas regulatory authorities.

Penalties have also increased tenfold this year. As a result, ASIC has both financial and political incentive to take a far harsher line in relation to suspected breaches. ASIC’s focus on deterrence will mean that, in the financial sector in particular, ASIC will proceed to resolution by litigation, not settlement.

How does this compare to international regulators?

The harsher penalties available to regulators in the U.S. and U.K. are now available in Australia, with a regulator more willing to take the battle to court. ASIC’s response is also in line with other regional regulators, such as the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which in its Enforcement Monograph published in September 2018, stated that their primary focus was to “achieve deterrence and prevent future harm … adequate to deter the offender from re-offending and also deter others from engaging in similar violations and misconduct.”

It also appears that ASIC will continue to focus on individual accountability of senior managers and the culture of organizations. This is consistent with the approach throughout the Asia-Pacific region, as well as Europe and the United States [see our client briefing MAS issues proposal to heighten senior management accountability, May 2018].


Tags: Asia Pacificbanks
Previous Post

How the Chief Risk Officer’s Role is Changing in 2019

Next Post

MTS FCPA Settlement and Karimova Indictment

Wendy Wysong

Wendy L. Wysong is a partner at Steptoe & Johnson. She served previously as a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, offering clients advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and OFAC Economic Sanctions. She was appointed by the State Department as the ITAR Special Compliance Official for Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) in 2010. Wendy combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 16 years with her regulatory background as the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce. She managed its enforcement program and was involved in the development and implementation of foreign policy through export controls across the administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security, as well as the intelligence community. Wendy received her law degree in 1984 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Related Posts

Webianr grpahic for behavox and CCI roundtable

The Power of AI in Financial Services Compliance

March 8, 2021
The Power of Artificial Intelligence in Financial Services Compliance

The Power of Artificial Intelligence in Financial Services Compliance

March 8, 2021
green and red location markers on map

FinCEN’s Registry Will Be a Game-Changer. It Will Also Place an Added Burden on Corporations.

March 5, 2021
illustration of man under giant gavel

BitPay’s $507K OFAC Sanctions Violations Settlement

March 4, 2021
Next Post
MTS FCPA Settlement and Karimova Indictment

MTS FCPA Settlement and Karimova Indictment

OneTrust offers download to demonstrate privacy management leadership
Access realtime data
Top 10 Risk and Compliance Trends

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence ESG fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring ransomware regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights