Schedule A Free Call

Compliance Frameworks

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593

ASIC v ANZ (Retail Cases Omnibus) [2025] FCA 1593 examines systemic failures across hardship notices, bonus interest and deceased-estate administration. The decision highlights the need for reliable customer-outcomes systems, accurate records, effective monitoring and board oversight of recurring operational compliance failures.
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

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

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786


In ASIC v Select AFSL Pty Ltd (No 2) [2022] FCA 786, the Federal Court found extensive contraventions involving conflicted remuneration, misleading sales practices, vulnerable consumers and failures to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly. The decision also reinforces director accountability for high-risk incentive schemes and outsourced call-centre operations.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission in the matter of NSG Services Pty Ltd v NSG Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 345

In ASIC v NSG Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 345, the Federal Court found repeated failures to comply with the best-interests and appropriate-advice obligations. The judgment also highlights the significance of external compliance reports, including Assured Support reviews, where identified deficiencies are not properly implemented or remediated.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 69


In ASIC v AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 69, the Federal Court imposed $5.175 million in penalties for failures to supervise advisers engaged in insurance rewriting. The decision underscores that formal compliance systems are ineffective without timely escalation, decisive management action and robust customer remediation.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 9) [2018] FCA 385

In ASIC v Cassimatis (No 9) [2018] FCA 385, the Federal Court imposed $70,000 penalties and seven-year disqualification orders on each former Storm Financial director. The decision highlights how serious governance failures, customer vulnerability and prolonged non-compliance can attract substantial personal sanctions even without dishonesty.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023

In ASIC v Cassimatis (No 8) [2016] FCA 1023, the Federal Court found that the directors of Storm Financial breached their duty of care and diligence under s 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision is a leading authority on director accountability, foreseeable compliance risk and “stepping-stone” liability in Australian financial services.
Read Case Insight

CASE INSIGHT

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macquarie Bank Limited [2024] FCA 416

*ASIC v Macquarie Bank Ltd* [2024] FCA 416 examines Macquarie’s failure to implement effective controls over third-party bulk transactions, resulting in 167 fraudulent withdrawals and a $10 million penalty. The decision highlights the forward-looking nature of s 912A(1)(a), the need for effective alert governance and the risks of unresolved control weaknesses.
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?