ASIC breach guidance leaves room for subjectivity

AIST/breach-reporting/ASIC/

23 June 2021
| By Jassmyn |
image
image image
expand image

The corporate regulator’s guidance on the incoming breach reporting regime leaves for subjective assessments of breaches by Australian financial services (AFS) licensees, according to the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST).

In its submission to the Government on breach reporting, AIST said while the scope of breaches or likely breaches of core obligations in the draft guidance had a level of objectivity there was room for subjective assessment.

“There is a risk that a lack of more granular guidance on what must be reported to ASIC [the Australian Securities and Investments Commission] may result in licensees inadvertently breaching their obligations as they may interpret guidance differently to how ASIC might do so,” the submission said.

“A breach or likely breach of a core obligation captures a wide range of scenarios and includes any contravention of a civil penalty provision.

“Considering the scope of civil penalty provisions and what may amount to trivial breaches, AIST considers that high-level guidance does not provide sufficient objectivity to assist AFS licensees determine if a breach or likely breach of a core obligation is a reportable situation. AIST supports measures that enhance breach reporting but notes that there is scope in Draft RG 78 for additional and targeted guidance on what constitutes ‘core obligation’.”

AIST said there needed to be guidance on how to determine whether a breach or likely breach of a core obligation was “significant”.

“Significance’ is not defined, and although we welcome the intent of objectivity by the introduction of ‘deemed significance’, the broad scope of civil penalty provisions leaves room for specific examples or case studies using one of the many civil penalty provisions outlined in the Corporations Act,” AIST said.

“In relation to ‘deemed significance’, we acknowledge its objective application to investigations that take more than 30 days, but would welcome further clarity and guidance on the ‘material loss or damage’ aspect, in particular more examples of what constitutes ‘material loss or damage’ both in financial and non-financial terms given that any such loss could result in a breach being deemed significant.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

The succession dilemma is more than just a matter of commitments.This isn’t simply about younger vs. older advisers. It’...

1 month 3 weeks ago

Significant ethical issues there. If a relationship is in the process of breaking down then both parties are likely to b...

2 months 2 weeks ago

It's not licensees not putting them on, it's small businesses (that are licensed) that cannot afford to put them on. The...

2 months 3 weeks ago

ASIC has canceled the AFSL of Sydney-based asset consultant and research firm....

3 weeks 2 days ago

ASIC has banned a Melbourne-based financial adviser for eight years over false and misleading statements regarding clients’ superannuation investments....

1 week 4 days ago

ASIC has banned a Melbourne-based financial adviser who gave inappropriate advice to his clients including false and misleading Statements of Advice....

1 week 2 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND
moneymanagement logo