On 12 May, the Court sat in the matter of ASIC v Justin Case.
What began as an RM workshop quickly became something far more engaging: a live mock proceeding examining the collapse of a fictional AI-driven advice licensee and the regulatory response that followed.
Responsible Managers, advisers and compliance professionals were not asked to passively absorb a compliance lesson.
Instead, they were asked to act as jurors.
They heard opening submissions.
They watched experienced counsel lead and challenge witnesses.
They saw expert evidence tested in real time.
And they were required to weigh a difficult question that divided the room well into the evening:
Disclaimer: The proceeding, parties, evidence, organisations and supporting materials referred to in this workshop were entirely fictional and created solely for educational and discussion purposes. Any resemblance to actual persons, organisations, proceedings, investigations or historic events, whether current or past, is purely coincidental and unintended.
When does innovation become non-compliance?
The proceeding examined an AFSL built around AI-assisted supervision, automated compliance systems and technology-enabled oversight.
The applicant’s contention was that the Case Advice Group authorised experienced advisers, employed and relied on highly qualified compliance personnel and the best lawyers. It had years of unqualified external audit reports and structured governance systems. Further, ASIC’s response was disproportionate to the actual risks identified. Furthermore, the applicant contended that institutional competitors reacting to advice innovations that threatened their dominance encouraged the regulatory and media attention, which directly caused the client detriment, used to justify intervention.
“You didn’t lead a horse to water. You simply shot it.”
ASIC’s position was that Case’s advice model was fundamentally flawed: built around embedded conflicts, compromised compliance systems, and an advice process that operated less as genuine financial advice and more as a product-sales pipeline, largely blind to client interests and likely to cause consumer detriment. ASIC further alleged that the technology was not being used to ensure effective compliance, but to simply create the appearance of effective compliance.
The Hearing
Over the course of the afternoon, participants heard from:
- experienced counsel conducting the matter live,
- an AI technology expert unpacking and explaining LLMs and AI
- a former ASIC officer, explaining how matters are identified and hadled
- and CEO Justin Case, bemoaning how dangerous it is to be a “tall poppy” in Australia.
Importantly, the evidence wasn’t presented as a lecture, and jurors weren’t tested on their detailed knowledge of Chapter 7 – but rather on the practical application of these requirements to real-world conditions. It also challenged them to consider industry norms objectively.
It was tested.
Cross-examination changed views.
Facts were challenged.
Assumptions shifted.
Even expert witnesses found themselves defending positions under pressure.
That was precisely the point.
The Outcome
We designed the workshop this way because compliance decisions are rarely made in ideal conditions. Compliance issues are almost never black-and-white. Facts, and motives, are open to interpretation. Intent matters less than you might imagine. And record-keeping becomes critical when documents are all you have to defend you.
They learnt that Black-and-white issues may be more grey than you expect. They showed that Leaders understand the need to test their knowledge. The industry doesn’t benefit from passive agreement.
It benefits from informed disagreement.
Jurors’ opinions changed over the course of evidence and, ultimately, the jury found against Mr Case.
But not unanimously, in principle.
A sincere thank you to everyone who participated, contributed evidence, challenged assumptions and helped make the session such a thoughtful and engaging discussion.
Particular thanks to our counsel, witnesses, facilitators and participants who committed fully to the format and made the proceeding feel remarkably real.
Keep an eye on Assured Support.
The Court will reconvene in July.
