Comment by Jim B (NA)

Jim B (NA) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:48:16 +1000

So when will ASIC be properly audited? i.e not by their own auditors as they obviously aren't worth the rubber stamps they give their tick of approval with. How many times have ASIC audited a company only a few years before it collapsed destroying lives of thousands for it to only be found that they had been acting inappropriately for a very long time.

More powers are not the answer, nor is funding, maybe some proper management and staff who actually care? A personal liability on work performed, a legislated requirement to put the public ahead of their own goals?

What is good for the goose...

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Brad Nelson (Nil)

Brad Nelson (Nil) — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:41:51 +1000

Maybe it should be ASIC employing defence council instead of the banks. What is the point of a government regulator that can't regulate? ASIC have claimed this whole time that they were focused on pursuing the banks for regulatory breaches rather than compensation for the average Mum and Dad investor, and yet at that the eleventh hour they cut a deal and drop ALL charges against the CBA. If there were breaches by the banks to warrant ASIC investigating and then starting proceedings, and if the banks were complicit in their dealings with the former Storm Financial, how can ASIC possibly settle with the CBA and let them make this deal without admitting liability. What will the CBA shareholders think after paying out over $260m in compensation, and yet their bank did no wrong? This will be a case where technicalities and lawyer speak will win over common sense justice, and once again the Mum and Dad investors who trusted their 'supposed' Financial Planner and ultimately our regulatory bodies will be the losers?.again.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Financial Standard Comments - ASIC civil case a dead duck: Storm founders

Comment by Jim B (NA)

Comment by Brad Nelson (Nil)