18 hours ago
5
Banks, super funds and financial services firms were collectively hit with a record $830 million in court-ordered civil penalties over misconduct in the last 12 months, as the corporate watchdog vows to continue taking legal action against major companies causing “real harm”.
The penalties bill for the 2025-26 financial year followed hefty fines for firms including HSBC, Westpac, Macquarie Securities, Mercer Super and Union Standard since January. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) achieved the milestone in fines despite its landmark defeat in March in its legal action against the board of Star Entertainment over governance failures at the casino operator.
However, critics say it is unlikely that the full $830 million in penalties will be recovered. That’s because the massive $300 million penalty issued against Union Standard, for its systemic unconscionable conduct affecting retail investors, is unlikely to be clawed back as the company has been in liquidation for six years.
“We are pursuing cases that expose serious failures in systems, governance and conduct, from scams and hardship failures to market infrastructure, superannuation, private credit, financial reporting, and digital assets,” ASIC Chair Sarah Court said.
Other significant penalties included: $35 million against HSBC Bank Australia after it admitted to scam protection failures; Macquarie Securities paying $35 million for systemic failures that led to the misreporting of millions of short sales and inaccurate market data; and Westpac paying $26 million for widespread failures in responding to customer hardship requests.
ASIC said throughout 2025-26 it launched more than 250 investigations.
Additionally, it secured $644 million to be paid back to tens of thousands of Australian customers and investors as refunds, compensation and other remediation payments after they were harmed by various companies’ misconduct.
In addition to Federal Court-ordered civil penalties, ASIC legal action led to 25 criminal convictions, including 11 jail terms.
In May, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld a prison term for former Sydney fund manager Rodney Forrest over a $3 million insider trading scheme.
In January, former Perth financial advisor Anthony Torre was sentenced to six years in jail for fraud involving stealing more than $1 million of his clients’ superannuation savings. In March, three officials from Remedy Housing were jailed for dishonesty offences in relation to promoting interest-free mortgages.
“Our enforcement work is focused on misconduct that causes real harm and we are delivering results, forcing change, strengthening accountability, and returning money to consumers and investors,” Court said.
Court, who took over from Joe Longo as Chair in June, said enforcement was “not just about punishment”, but “detecting misconduct sooner, preventing harm where we can and securing remediation”.
“Our focus is on protecting investors, returning money where possible, and holding lawbreakers to account. Where we see serious harm or risks to market integrity, we will act quickly and use the full range of regulatory and enforcement tools available to us,” Court said.
Jason Harris, professor of corporate law at the University of Sydney, said the headline figures reported by ASIC in its enforcement report for the year were positive and reflected the regulator being “increasingly active”.
However, Harris said the $830 million civil penalty total needed to be couched in the reality that the $300 million order against Union Standard is unlikely to be paid.
“It does need to be said that this particular company has been in liquidation for the past six years and I would think there is a slim to none chance that the $300 million will be recovered,” he said.
Harris said that while some may question why ASIC “sued a company that was already dead”, there was a genuine deterrent effect when courts make such harsh findings.
More broadly, Harris said ASIC had found itself in a position with such a broad regulatory responsibility that it was struggling to enforce cases in a timely manner.
He said that while ASIC was framing its $644 million in funds returned to affected customers and investors, had it had the resourcing to act faster – with initial complaints lodged years before ASIC intervention in some cases – “remediation may not have been needed”.
“ASIC has too much to do, and it doesn’t have enough resources … This means it isn’t testing the law enough in new areas that are threats to the economy,” Harris said.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.
