Posted by Houses and Holes in at 1:58pm on October 11, 2013


From ASIC chief Greg MedcraftThere are three points to make. ...................


made the point that the Federal Police had investigated Securency then passed the issue to ASIC, where it disappeared


From the ABC program:

The AFP handed its evidence to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). In a statement, ASIC said it had reviewed the material and decided not to take the matter further. The RBA sold its 50 per cent share in Securency earlier this year.

The program also made clear that ASIC never interviewed the prime witness in the parallel case at Note Printing Australia even though doing so would make eminent sense. This is made all the more peculiar by ASIC’s own defense: that it read “10,000 documents” before dismissing the case. To put it mildly, it needs to get out more.

The second point is that Australia’s white collar laws are simply too soft. In the comparable laws in the US and UK – the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Bribery Act – make clear that corrupt practices are criminal offenses that will be prosecuted at home.

In his speech today, Medcraft didn’t even mention the case of the RBA subsidiaries.  Given these, how are we to take Medcraft’s ASIC on trust – that it has the will to police anti-corruption behaviour – when instead of arguing for a fix to the problems it hides behind them?  read more$file/Setting-the-record-straight--ASIC-bribery-and-enforcement-action.pdf

Setting the record straight: ASIC, bribery and enforcement action
A speech by Greg Medcraft, Chairman, Australian Securities and Investments Commission
AmCham Business Leaders Lunch
11 October 2013


Today I wanted to speak about ASIC’s handling of foreign bribery cases – something that has received a lot of media lately. In particular, I want to discuss our involvement in these cases.  Before I do that, I thought I’d briefly overview how ASIC works.......................