English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

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

Published

7 years ago

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Latest world news

Iranian President Pezeshkian at UN says Iranians have been victims of US terrorism

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said at the UN General Assembly that Iranians had been victims of US terrorism and insisted that Iran had acted in self-defence.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 23, 2026

By

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused the United States of subjecting Iranians to what he described as terrorism while addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday.

Pezeshkian said Iran had defended itself against attacks and rejected the characterisation of the country as a terrorist actor. His remarks came during a rare wartime appearance at the UN as tensions between Iran and the United States remain high.

Pezeshkian accuses US and Israel of attacks

Speaking at the General Assembly, Pezeshkian said Iranian civilians had been targeted by attacks and described the actions against his country as aggression.

“We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists,” he said, according to the report.

Pezeshkian also accused the United States and Israel of attacking Iran, while maintaining that Tehran’s response was an act of self-defence.

The Iranian president displayed photographs of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and more than 150 schoolchildren who, according to his account, were killed during the early days of the conflict.

Iran’s message at the UN

Pezeshkian’s address came against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States and heightened tensions in the region.

Iranian officials had indicated ahead of the UN visit that they intended to highlight what Tehran considers attacks against its people and raise concerns over the international response to the conflict.

The Iranian delegation’s visit to New York also comes amid restrictions imposed by the United States on the delegation’s movement and other aspects of its stay, according to reporting ahead of the address.

Pezeshkian says Iran defended itself

Pezeshkian’s central message at the UN was that Iran’s military actions should be viewed as a response to attacks rather than terrorism.

His description of the conflict and the allegations against the United States and Israel represent the Iranian government’s position. They should therefore be attributed to Pezeshkian rather than presented as independently established facts.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

PM Modi’s Canada visit could help wrap trade talks, says Canada PM Mark Carney

Canadian PM Mark Carney said he is looking forward to hosting PM Narendra Modi, with both countries aiming to conclude their ongoing trade negotiations.

Published

2 days ago

on

September 23, 2026

By

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has said he is looking forward to hosting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as India and Canada continue efforts to advance their bilateral relationship and conclude ongoing trade negotiations.

The two countries have been working towards a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), with both sides previously setting a target to conclude the negotiations in 2026.

Carney and Modi have held discussions on strengthening economic ties between India and Canada, including trade and investment. Their engagement has gained momentum following Carney’s visit to India earlier this year.

India-Canada trade talks

India and Canada formally resumed efforts towards a broader trade agreement after a period of strained bilateral ties. The two sides have committed to advancing negotiations on a CEPA covering their economic relationship.

In June, Carney and Modi reviewed progress in bilateral economic cooperation during their meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in France. They expressed satisfaction with the progress in CEPA negotiations and reaffirmed their shared objective of concluding the talks in 2026.

During Carney’s visit to India in March, the two leaders had also agreed to accelerate negotiations on the CEPA and work towards finalising the agreement during 2026.

Modi’s proposed Canada visit

Carney had invited PM Modi to visit Canada in 2026, and the two leaders agreed to remain engaged through diplomatic channels to work towards a mutually convenient date for the visit.

The proposed visit comes as New Delhi and Ottawa seek to build on renewed diplomatic and economic engagement, with trade negotiations remaining a key part of the relationship.

The focus on completing the trade talks comes as both countries look to expand commercial ties and establish a broader economic framework through the proposed CEPA.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump issues fresh Iran warning at UN General Assembly, signals deal after midterms

US President Donald Trump issued a fresh warning to Iran during his UN General Assembly address, saying he faces a choice between a deal and further escalation.

Published

2 days ago

on

September 22, 2026

By

US President Donald Trump used his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to outline what he described as a major decision over Iran, putting the possibility of a deal against further military escalation.

Speaking at the UN in New York, Trump said he had a “big decision” to make. He questioned whether the United States should pursue an agreement that would allow Iran to rebuild or instead take further action against the Islamic Republic.

Trump later indicated that he believed an agreement with Iran could be reached after the US midterm elections, which are scheduled for November 3.

Trump says deal with Iran remains possible

During his speech, Trump presented two possible paths. He said a deal could allow Iran to rebuild and become a stronger country, while also raising the possibility of destroying the Islamic Republic if an agreement was not reached.

Trump said he believed a deal could eventually be reached, arguing that Iran was waiting to see the outcome of the US midterm elections.

His comments came amid the continuing US-Iran conflict and renewed diplomatic activity surrounding the confrontation. Trump’s UN appearance came as Washington was also engaged in discussions with multiple international leaders over the Iran conflict and other global issues.

Iranian delegation walks out during Trump’s speech

The Iranian delegation reportedly left the General Assembly chamber as Trump began describing the military confrontation with Iran.

According to the report, only one person from the Iranian delegation remained seated as Trump spoke about the conflict and the military strikes of the past six months.

The walkout came as tensions between Washington and Tehran remained high, with both sides facing pressure over the continuation of the conflict.

Trump’s latest warning follows earlier comments

Trump’s UN remarks came days after he said he was approaching a major decision over whether to intensify military action against Iran or pursue another route.

He had also indicated before his UN appearance that he could be open to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian during the UN General Assembly in New York.

The possibility of renewed negotiations comes against the backdrop of continuing military and diplomatic tensions between the two countries.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com