Save You have reached your maximum number of saved items. Remove items from your saved list to add more. TOTOTO Banks, super funds and financial services firms have been collectively hit by a record $830 million in court-ordered civil penalties for misconduct in the past 12 months, as the corporate watchdog vows to continue taking
Banks, super funds and financial services firms have been collectively hit by a record $830 million in court-ordered civil penalties for misconduct in the past 12 months, as the corporate watchdog vows to continue taking legal action against major firms causing “real harm”.
The sanctions bill for the 2025-26 financial year followed heavy fines for companies including HSBC, Westpac, Macquarie Securities, Mercer Super and Union Standard since January. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) achieved the fines milestone despite its historic defeat in March in its legal action against Star Entertainment’s board over governance failures at the casino operator.
However, critics say the $830 million in fines is unlikely to be recovered. This is because the huge $300 million fine levied against Union Standard, for its unconscionable systemic conduct affecting retail investors, is unlikely to be recovered as the company has been in liquidation for six years.
“We are investigating cases that expose serious failures in systems, governance and conduct, from scams and hardship failures to market infrastructure, superannuation, private credit, financial reporting and digital assets,” ASIC chair Sarah Court said.
Other significant sanctions included: $35 million against HSBC Bank Australia after it admitted failures to protect against scams; Macquarie Securities paid $35 million for systemic failures that led to the misreporting of millions of short sales and inaccurate market data; and Westpac paid $26 million for widespread failures to respond to customer hardship requests.
ASIC said that throughout 2025-26 it launched more than 250 investigations.
In addition, it obtained $644 million that will be returned to tens of thousands of Australian customers and investors as refunds, compensation and other remedial payments after they have been harmed by the misconduct of several companies.
In addition to the civil penalties ordered by the Federal Court, ASIC’s legal action resulted in 25 criminal convictions, including 11 prison terms.
In May, the Full Federal Court upheld the prison sentence for former Sydney fund manager Rodney Forrest over a $3 million insider trading scheme.
In January, former Perth financial adviser Anthony Torre was sentenced to six years in jail for fraud involving the theft of more than $1 million from his clients’ retirement savings. In March, three Remedy Housing officials were jailed for dishonesty offenses in relation to the promotion of interest-free mortgages.
“Our law enforcement work focuses on misconduct that causes real harm and we are getting results, forcing change, strengthening accountability and returning money to consumers and investors,” Court said.
The court, which replaced Joe Longo as president in June, said enforcement was “not just about punishment” but “detecting misconduct earlier, preventing harm where we can, and ensuring redress.”
“Our goal is to protect investors, return money wherever possible and hold lawbreakers accountable. When we see serious damage or risks to market integrity, we will act quickly and use the full range of regulatory and enforcement tools we have at our disposal,” Court said.
Jason Harris, a professor of corporate law at the University of Sydney, said the headline figures reported by ASIC in its enforcement report for the year were positive and reflected the regulator was “increasingly active”.
However, Harris said the total $830 million civil penalty needed to be expressed in the reality that the $300 million order against Union Standard is unlikely to be paid.
“It needs to be said that this particular company has been in liquidation for the last six years and I think there is little or no chance of the $300 million being recovered,” he said.
Harris said that while some may question why ASIC “sued a company that was already dead”, there was a genuine deterrent effect when the courts issued such harsh findings.
More broadly, Harris said ASIC had found itself in a position with such extensive regulatory responsibility that it was struggling to enforce cases in a timely manner.
He said that while ASIC was formulating its $644 million in funds returned to affected customers and investors, if it had had the resources to act more quickly – in some cases, with initial complaints lodged years before ASIC intervened – “remediation may not have been necessary”.
“ASIC has too much to do and it doesn’t have enough resources… This means it’s not testing the law enough in new areas that are threats to the economy,” Harris said.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers top stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinions. Sign up to receive it every weekday morning.
Elias Visontay is a national consumer affairs reporter at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect by email.From our partners
Keep following us for the latest insights.
