Schedule A Free Call

ASIC & Enforcement

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651

In ASIC v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651, the Federal Court imposed a $26 million penalty for systemic failures in Westpac’s online financial hardship processes. The decision highlights the need for end-to-end complaint capture, reliable system controls, timely hardship decisions and effective protection against premature enforcement.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92

In ASIC v FIIG Securities Limited [2026] FCA 92, the Federal Court imposed a $2.5 million penalty for systemic cybersecurity failures under FIIG’s AFSL obligations. The decision confirms that cybersecurity is a core licensing, resource and risk-management issue requiring effective controls, skilled personnel and board-level oversight.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527

In ASIC v Telstra Super Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 527, the Federal Court found failures in Telstra Super’s internal dispute resolution processes, including late responses and deficient delay notices. The decision clarifies the legal force of RG 271-aligned IDR procedures and the limits of complaint-handling exceptions.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Wealth & Risk Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 59

In ASIC v Wealth & Risk Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 59, the Federal Court imposed $7.8 million in penalties over a conflicted “fast cash” advice model targeting financially distressed consumers. The case also featured expert evidence from Sean Graham, founder of Assured Support, on reasonable AFSL compliance, supervision and governance controls.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation (Omnibus) [2022] FCA 515

In ASIC v Westpac Banking Corporation (Omnibus) [2022] FCA 515, the Federal Court imposed $113 million in penalties across six proceedings involving systemic fee, insurance, debt-sale and customer-account failures. The decision reinforces the independent obligation to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly, supported by effective systems, records and remediation.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (prov liq apptd) [2016] FCA 42


In ASIC v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Ltd [2016] FCA 42, the Federal Court upheld the validity of a voluntary administration appointment under s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision highlights the importance of genuine director opinion, contemporaneous board records and clear evidence of likely insolvency.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCA 926

In ASIC v The Cash Store Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] FCA 926, the Federal Court found systemic responsible-lending failures and unconscionable sales of consumer credit insurance to vulnerable payday-loan customers. The decision highlights the need for proper inquiries, verification, suitability assessments and effective oversight of outsourced credit functions.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Camelot Derivatives Pty Limited [2012] FCA 414


In ASIC v Camelot Derivatives Pty Ltd (in liq) [2012] FCA 414, the Federal Court found misleading promotion of options-trading returns, commission-driven trading and failures to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly. The decision highlights the risks of overstated performance claims, excessive trading and conflicts between client interests and brokerage revenue.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation)(No 3) [2020] FCA 208


In ASIC v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 3) [2020] FCA 208, the Federal Court found extensive breaches involving unlicensed personal advice, inappropriate recommendations, misleading conduct, unconscionable systems and inadequate AFSL supervision. The decision confirms that licensees may outsource functions, but not their statutory responsibility.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

OnePath Custodians Pty Limited v Australian Securities and Investments Commission v OnePath Custodians Pty Limited [2023] FCA 1485


In ASIC v OnePath Custodians Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1485, the Federal Court imposed a $5 million penalty after superannuation members were misled about adviser service fees, cancellation rights and service entitlements. The decision highlights the need for accurate member communications, integrated fee controls and prompt remediation.
Read Case Insight

Step 1 of 8 - Your Role

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Assess your ASIC exposure

Answer a few targeted questions to identify where your compliance may not stand up under ASIC review.

Takes less than 2 minutes. No preparation required.

What best describes your role?