English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Westpac’s scandal highlights a system failing to deter corporate wrongdoing

Published

on

 

Elise Bant, University of Melbourne and Jeannie Marie Paterson, University of Melbourne

The news that Australia’s anti money-laundering regulator has accused Westpac of breaching the law on 23 million occasions points to the prospect that powerful members of corporate Australia are still behaving badly.

This despite the clear lessons offered by the Banking Royal Commission.

Regulators are still struggling to find the right balance between pursuing wrongdoers through the courts – an admittedly costly, time-consuming and highly risky business – and finding other means to punish and deter misconduct.

Australia’s anti money-laundering regulator, AUSTRAC, is seeking penalties against Westpac in the Federal Court.

Each of the bank’s alleged contraventions attracts a civil penalty of up to A$21 million. In theory, that could equate to a fine in the region of A$391 trillion.
In practice, it is likely to be a mere fraction of that sum. Commonwealth Bank breached anti-money-laundering laws and faced a theoretical maximum fine of nearly A$1 trillion, but settled for A$700 million.

No doubt the reality that companies can minimise penalties is a factor in why breaches continue.

This impression is reinforced by revelations last week that financial services company AMP continued to charge fees to its dead clients despite the shellacking it received at the hands of the royal commission.

Last month a Federal Court judge refused to approve a A$75 million fine agreed between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Volkswagen to settle litigation over the car company’s conduct in cheating emissions tests for diesel vehicles. The judge was reported to be “outraged” by the settlement, which meant Volkswagen did not admit liability for its misconduct.

The A$75 million is a drop in the ocean of the likely profits obtained from this systemic wrongdoing and pales into insignificance next to fines imposed in other countries.

Proposals for law reform

So business as usual, right?

Maybe not for long. The Australian Law Reform Commission has just released a discussion paper on corporate criminal responsibility.

It points out that effective punishment and deterrence of serious criminal and civil misconduct by corporations in Australia is undermined by a combination of factors.

These include a confusing and inconsistent web of laws governing the circumstances in which conduct is “attributed” to the company. Similar problems of inconsistency arguably also undermine other key areas, such as efforts to give courts the power to impose hefty fines based on the profits obtained by the wrongdoing

The repeated attempts to come up with new and more effective attribution rules arise because corporate wrongdoers are “artificial people”. For centuries, courts and parliaments have struggled with how to make them pay for what is done by their human managers, employees and (both human and corporate) agents. All too often a company’s directors disclaim all knowledge of the wrongdoing.

To fix this, the ALRC recommends having one single method to attribute responsibility. It builds on the attribution rule first developed in the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and now used, in various forms, across various statutes.

The ALRC proposes that the conduct and state of mind of any “associates” (whether natural individuals or other corporations) acting on behalf of the corporation should be attributable to the corporation.

This goes well beyond the traditional focus on directors and senior managers and would provide some welcome consistency in the law.

Importantly, serious criminal and civil breaches that require proof of a dishonest or highly culpable corporate “state of mind” can be satisfied either by proving the state of mind of the “associate” or that the company “authorised or permitted” the conduct.

A “due diligence” defence would protect the corporation from liability where the misconduct was truly attributable to rogue “bad apples” in an otherwise a well-run organisation. There would be no protection in the case of widespread “system errors” and “administrative failures” so pathetically admitted during the royal commission.

The ALRC also proposes that senior officers be liable for the conduct of corporations where they are in “a position to influence the relevant conduct and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a contravention or offence”.

This would place the onus on those in a position to change egregious corporate practices to show they took reasonable steps to do so.

Removing the penalty ceiling

These recommendations, if adopted could prove a game-changer for regulators asking themselves “why not litigate?” and corporations used to managing the fall-out of their misconduct as simply a “cost of business”.

The ALRC’s recommendations that the criminal and civil penalties should be enough to ensure corporations don’t profit from wrongdoing will be welcomed by many. Some academics have gone further and argued that the law should be changed to make it clear that civil, not just criminal penalties, should be set at a level that is effective to punish serious wrongdoing.

The ALRC also raises the question whether current limits on penalties should be removed. The Westpac scenario might be just the kind of case to make that option attractive.The Conversation

Elise Bant, Professor of Law, University of Melbourne and Jeannie Marie Paterson, Professor of Law, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

India flags selective targeting over Ukraine war, cautions Poland against backing Pakistan

India has flagged selective targeting over its Russia trade ties during Ukraine war discussions with Poland and cautioned against any support to Pakistan-linked terrorism.

Published

on

India has conveyed strong concerns to Poland over what it described as “selective and unfair targeting” related to its trade ties with Russia amid the Ukraine war, while firmly cautioning Warsaw against extending any form of support to Pakistan on issues linked to cross-border terrorism.

The concerns were raised by external affairs minister S Jaishankar during talks with Polish deputy prime minister and foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski in New Delhi, where both sides reviewed the growing India-Poland strategic partnership and discussed key global and regional developments.

India-Poland strategic partnership review

Welcoming the Polish delegation, Jaishankar said the discussions were taking place at a time of major global uncertainty, making dialogue between countries from different regions essential. He noted that India and Poland had elevated their relationship to a strategic partnership during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Warsaw in August 2024.

The two sides reviewed the Action Plan 2024–28 and explored ways to expand cooperation in areas including trade, investment, defence, security, clean technologies and digital innovation.

India’s stand on Ukraine conflict

The Ukraine war figured prominently in the talks, with Jaishankar reiterating India’s position on the issue. He said he had candidly shared New Delhi’s views with Sikorski on several occasions and again underlined India’s objections during the New Delhi meeting.

Jaishankar stated that the selective targeting of India through tariffs and other pressure measures over its Moscow trade ties was unfair and unjustified. India has consistently maintained that it supports dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the conflict and opposes attempts to influence its independent foreign policy choices through selective pressure.

Warning on terrorism and Pakistan

Jaishankar also raised India’s long-standing concern over cross-border terrorism, stressing that Poland should adopt a zero-tolerance approach. He said Warsaw should not, directly or indirectly, contribute to the terrorist infrastructure in India’s neighbourhood, a remark widely seen as a reference to Pakistan.

India has intensified diplomatic outreach in Europe to ensure that partners remain mindful of Pakistan’s record on terrorism financing and safe havens for extremist groups. Jaishankar’s message underscored that New Delhi expects consistency and principle from its strategic partners on the issue.

The remarks were also viewed in the context of Poland’s statement on Kashmir during a bilateral visit to Islamabad in October 2025.

Poland echoes concern over selective pressure

Responding to India’s concerns, Sikorski said Poland agreed that selective targeting through tariffs was unfair and could disrupt global trade stability. Referring to incidents in his own country, he said Poland had faced acts of arson and attempted state terrorism, including attacks on railway infrastructure, and underlined the need to counter trans-border terrorism.

Growing economic ties

The meeting took place against the backdrop of expanding economic engagement between the two countries. Poland is among India’s key trading partners in Central Europe, with bilateral trade at around USD 7 billion and Indian investments exceeding USD 3 billion.

Both sides expressed confidence that the strategic partnership would continue to deepen, even as India used the dialogue to clearly articulate its red lines on geopolitical pressure and terrorism.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

India closely monitoring situation in Iran, urges nationals to leave

India has advised its citizens in Iran to leave the country as authorities closely monitor the deteriorating security situation, with nearly 9,000 Indians currently residing there.

Published

on

The Indian government on Friday said it is closely monitoring the evolving security situation in Iran and has advised Indian nationals currently in the country to leave using available means. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stressed that ensuring the safety and well-being of Indian citizens remains a priority.

Speaking during the weekly media briefing in New Delhi, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said approximately 9,000 Indians are presently residing in Iran, with students forming the majority of the community. He said the government has issued multiple advisories in response to recent developments.

“In light of the situation, we have advised Indian citizens in India not to travel to Iran at this time, and those currently residing there have been asked to leave the country by whatever means are available,” Jaiswal said.

The spokesperson added that the government is maintaining close vigilance over developments and is prepared to take necessary steps for the welfare of Indian nationals.

Embassy advisories and travel warnings

The Indian Embassy in Tehran has issued an advisory asking Indian citizens — including students, businesspersons, pilgrims and tourists — to depart Iran through available transport options, including commercial flights, citing the evolving security environment.

Separately, the MEA reiterated its advisory urging Indians to avoid travel to Iran until further notice. It also recalled an earlier warning issued on January 5, advising Indian nationals in Iran to remain cautious and refrain from participating in protests or demonstrations.

Indian citizens in Iran have been asked to keep essential travel and identification documents, including passports, readily accessible. Those living in the country on resident visas have also been advised to register with the Indian Embassy.

Protests and regional tensions

The advisories come against the backdrop of nationwide protests in Iran, which began at Tehran’s Grand Bazaar in late December following a sharp fall in the Iranian rial. The demonstrations later spread across the country amid mounting economic challenges, including inflation, unemployment, power outages and water shortages.

Regional tensions have also risen amid international warnings of possible military action if the situation escalates further. These developments have prompted several countries, including India, to review travel advisories and safety measures for their citizens in Iran.

India has maintained long-standing ties with Iran, though officials have indicated that recent international trade-related announcements linked to Tehran are expected to have a limited impact, given the relatively small share of bilateral trade in India’s overall commerce.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump calls it a wonderful gesture as Machado presents him Nobel Peace Prize medal

Donald Trump described it as a “wonderful gesture” after Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado presented him with her Nobel Peace Prize medal during a White House meeting.

Published

on

donald-trump

US President Donald Trump has described it as a “wonderful gesture” after Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado presented him with her Nobel Peace Prize medal during a meeting at the White House.

Trump praised Machado publicly after the interaction, saying she had been through “so much” and that the act reflected “mutual respect.” He said the medal was given to him for the work he has done, according to his post on his social media platform.

The gesture, however, has drawn attention as the Nobel Institute has clarified that a Nobel Peace Prize cannot be transferred to another individual.

Nobel Institute rules out transfer of prize

The Nobel Institute has stated that Machado is not permitted to give her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump. Despite this, a White House official confirmed that Trump intends to keep the medal, even if the act remains symbolic.

Trump has long expressed interest in the Nobel Peace Prize, making the episode particularly notable despite the formal limitations placed on such honours.

Political context behind the meeting

Machado had been widely regarded as Venezuela’s democratic leader-in-waiting before Trump’s recent policy decisions regarding the country. Earlier this month, Trump declined to fully back her challenge to Venezuela’s ruling regime and instead signalled openness to engaging with leaders linked to the existing power structure.

Trump has publicly questioned Machado’s ability to lead, saying she lacks sufficient support and respect within Venezuela. Her political party is believed to have won the 2024 elections, results that were rejected by President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump has also indicated a willingness to work with acting President Delcy Rodriguez, who previously served as Maduro’s deputy.

What Machado said after the meeting

Speaking to reporters after leaving the White House and heading to Capitol Hill, Machado said she presented the medal to the US president as recognition of his “unique commitment” to Venezuela’s freedom.

She added that Trump did not provide detailed assurances during their closed-door discussion, including on the issue of elections in Venezuela. No further specifics of the meeting were disclosed.

Afterwards, Machado greeted supporters gathered near the White House gates, hugging several of them. Addressing the crowd, she said they could count on President Trump, prompting brief chants of appreciation from those present.

Machado’s recent public appearance

Before her visit to Washington, Machado had largely stayed out of public view since travelling to Norway last month, where her daughter accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf. She had spent nearly a year in hiding in Venezuela before appearing at the ceremony.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com