Australian Investment and Security Commission - Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss about the Australian Investment and Security Commission. Answer: Issues faced by crown resorts The directors of a corporate organization have the duty to act in the best interest of the company. Section 180(1) of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) instructs the directors and officers of a company to deploy care and diligence in relation to their operation. Such care and diligence is evaluated by appointing a hypothetical person as a director in the same situation and analyze the reasonability in relation to the decision[1]. The decision has to be in the best interest of the company. In the case of ASIC v Cassimatis[2] it had been stated that any reasonable director will not breach the law of the land in any condition. Even the shareholders do not have the power to ratify such acts. In the given situation the directors of crown sports have violated legal provisions by sending agents to china in order to recruit high roller gamblers where gambling is illegal in china. In relation to such action employees of the organization have been arrested by the Chinese government which also inc ludes Australians. In addition there has been a 14% decline in the shares of the organization which has subjected the company and its shareholders to major losses. The company has also suffered reputational loss because of its actions. In the given situation the corporate legal issues which are faced by the directors of crown resorts are in relation to the directors duties violated by them. The directors as discussed above have breached section 180(1) of the CA by not acting with diligence and care in relation to the affairs of the company. Role of AISC The Australian Investment and Security Commission is a corporate watch dog in Australia. It has the duty to keep an eye on the affairs of corporate organizations. The AISC regulates integrated corporate, financial services, markets and consumer credit regulators in Australia. The vision of the commission is to allow the markets to fund economy and trigger economic growth. The AISC has the purpose of ensuring the financial wellbeing in Australia. The AISC promotes the confidence and trust of consumers and investors, ensures efficient and markets and providing proper registration services. The AISC brings actions against organizations who fail to act in an ethical and legal manner and thereby causing loss to the investors and creditors. It seeks orders like financial penalties along with suspension of directors in case any violation has been identified[3]. In the given situation where the employees of Crown gave been arrested in china for illegal activities it is the role of AISC to in vestigate into the matter. This is because such a decision by the directors may cause significant losses to the investors and creditors of the company. In addition where any company registered with the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) have been accused of violating law it is the duty of the AISC to make investigation into the matter. In case the AISC finds out that the directors of Crown have violated their corporate duties it will seek legal actions against them in Australia. Possible Remedies Upon investigation if it is found by the AISC that the directors of Crown have actually indulged in illegal activities there are several remedies which are available in relation to the CA. violating the duties of directors provided in the CA is a civil penalty provisions. In addition the directors can also be prosecuted under criminal liability under the criminal code as per section 6.1 if they are found to violate the provisions of section 184 of the CA which is to recklessly breach the duties provided in section 180-183 of the CA. The civil penalty provisions are provided under section 1317E of the CA[4]. The directors may be subjected to a financial penalty of upto A$200, 000 in case of serious breach. In addition the directors of Crown may be suspended from managing a corporation for a period up to 5 years under the provisions of section 206C of the CA[5]. The directors may also seek an alibi under section 1317G where the court may pardon the breach committed by them in relation to their duties. However the AISC needs to prove that the directors have committed a serious breach. In the case of Australian Securities Investments Commission [ASIC] v Lindberg[6] the ASIC was able to obtain a suspension of 2 year along with a financial penalty of $100,000 where the directors had violated section 180(1) of the CA. Although the director has an outside settlement in relation to penalties the AISC had to prove its case in the court. The Commonwealth bank has been subjected to a big drop in its share price after AUSTRAC has launched a case in relation to money laundering against the organization. This may also subject the organization to a potential class action by its shareholders. AUSTRAC has brought an allegation against the organization that they have been associated with consistent money laundering operations by terrorist and criminal gangs. The CBA has been accused of wide breaches in relation to Counter-terrorism financing and money laundering rules. Civil penalty proceedings have been initiated by AUSTRAC against the company in the federal court for serious and systemic non-compliance[7]. The conduct of the CBA has subjected the Australian community to serious and ongoing financial crime as provided by the court in filing. On the other hand it had been provided by the bank that they would never indulge in an activity or action which would enable any kind of crime. The issue which has been brought before the court by AUSTRAC is that there has been a failure on the part of the bank to report suspicious matters in relation to transaction of over A$77 million. It has been alleged by the agency that 53,700 contraventions of counter-terrorism laws and Anti- money laundering laws have been made by the bank in particular to its intelligent deposit machines. The maximum penalties which can be imposed in relation to the anti-money laundering and counter terrorism is A$18 million for every violation[8]. It has been stated by AUSTRAC that even in situation where it was obvious that the machines were used for suspected money laundering the bank did not take necessary steps to mitigate and manage the risks. It has been alleged by AUSTRAC that the machines had been utilized by four money laundering syndicates which included those associated with drug import and distribution network. The machines had been used by the syndicates for the purpose of depositing and transferring cash at low amounts which would keep suspicion at bay. One of the money laundering activities involved more than 21m deposited into 11 CBAs which mostly came through intelligent machines. The bank allegedly failed to take any action even after been provided with warnings by the Australian Federal police. The Australian Investment and Security Commission is a corporate watch dog in Australia. It has the duty to keep an eye on the affairs of corporate organizations. The AISC regulates integrated corporate, financial ser vices, markets and consumer credit regulators in Australia. The vision of the commission is to allow the markets to fund economy and trigger economic growth. The AISC has the purpose of ensuring the financial wellbeing in Australia. The AISC promotes the confidence and trust of consumers and investors, ensures efficient and markets and providing proper registration services. The AISC brings actions against organizations who fail to act in an ethical and legal manner and thereby causing loss to the investors and creditors. It seeks orders like financial penalties along with suspension of directors in case any violation has been identified. It has been provide that the directors of CBA have not been able to take proper care in relation to the affairs of the company[9]. As discussed above the directors of a corporate organization have the duty to act in the best interest of the company. Section 180(1) of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) instructs the directors and officers of a company to deploy care and diligence in relation to their operation. Such care and diligence is evaluated by appointing a hypothetical person as a director in the same situation and analyze the reasonability in relation to the decision. The decision has to be in the best interest of the company. In this case as the company has indulge in violation of legal provisions its directors have also violated the provisions of section 180(1) of the CA. this is because a reasonable director would not indulge in actions which are in violation of anti-money laundering and Counter-terrorism laws. In the given situation is the role of the AISC to investigate the issue. Along with the organization itself the directors would also be subjected to prosecution because of the breach of directors du ties committed by them. Under the civil penalty provisions they may be made personally liable for the paying financial penalties along with being suspended for managing the affairs of the company under section 1317E and 206C of the CA. References ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023 Australian Securities Investments Commission [ASIC] v Lindberg [2012] VSC 332 CBA faces 'very large' shareholder action on money laundering. (2018). ABC News. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/commonwealth-bank-faces-shareholder-class-action/8833860 CBA will take months to answer money laundering allegations. (2018). ABC News. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/commonwealth-bank-will-take-months-to-respond-to-austrac/8869706 Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) Knaus, C. (2018). Commonwealth Bank accused of money laundering and terrorism-financing breaches. the Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/03/commonwealth-bank-accused-of-money-laundering-and-terrorism-financing-breaches Our role | ASIC - Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (2018). Asic.gov.au. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/what-we-do/our-role/ [1] Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) at section 180(1) [2] (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023 [3] Our role | ASIC - Australian Securities and Investments Commission. (2018). Asic.gov.au. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/what-we-do/our-role/ [4] Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) at section 1317E [5] Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) at section 206C [6] [2012] VSC 332 [7] CBA will take months to answer money laundering allegations. (2018). ABC News. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/commonwealth-bank-will-take-months-to-respond-to-austrac/8869706 [8] Knaus, C. (2018). Commonwealth Bank accused of money laundering and terrorism-financing breaches. the Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/03/commonwealth-bank-accused-of-money-laundering-and-terrorism-financing-breaches [9] CBA faces 'very large' shareholder action on money laundering. (2018). ABC News. Retrieved 3 January 2018, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/commonwealth-bank-faces-shareholder-class-action/8833860