Table of contentsRole and jurisdiction of Australian regulatorsViews and criticisms of the Royal CommissionConduct of the AMP and responsibilities of directorsKey legal issuesRelevance of the Royal Commission to company law regulators are changing their approach to white-collar crimeConclusionThe Australian article, 'Banking Royal Commission: Kenneth Hayne unveils superlist of hearings' outlines many of the issues relating to the ongoing Banking Royal Commission as they relate to Australian regulators , the GPA and Australian company law. AMP Limited is a provider of life insurance, superannuation, superannuation and other financial services in Australia and New Zealand, and has been subject to misconduct in relation to charges for non-service to customers. This raises questions about the role and jurisdiction of Australian regulators, the legal issues surrounding the conduct of the GPA, and the relationship between corporate law and the Royal Commission, all of which will be addressed in depth in this essay. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayRole and jurisdiction of Australian regulatorsThe Council of Financial Regulators (CFR) comprises four coordinating bodies whose role promotes the stability of the financial system Australian and contributes to the financial regulation of the country. Australian corporate entities such as AMP are closely regulated and supervised by agencies such as the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASICASIC is an independent Commonwealth government body that regulates companies, markets and financial services. and Consumer Credit Australia. Administering the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (ASIC Act) and working closely with the Corporations Act, the regulator's vision is to produce a fair, honest, competent and efficient financial structure for the nation. Due to the roles and laws administered by ASIC, ASIC has particular powers that it can exercise to carry out its functions, such as registering auditors and liquidators, investigating any suspected breaches of law, making rules aimed at ensuring the integrity of financial markets and taking civil action. court sanctions.APRAAPRA is an independent statutory authority that protects the interests of depositors, policyholders and superannuation fund members by working closely with the Australian Treasury, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Australian Commission Securities and Investments Authority (ASIC). APRA administers legislation which allows the body to supervise general insurers, life insurers, friendly societies, superannuation funds and authorized deposit-taking institutions. Opinion and criticism of the Royal Commission In order for Australia's financial system to remain stable, strong and reliable, regulators must properly use their capabilities, skills and power. However, weaknesses in ASIC's skills and processes have particularly appeared in the media. There are concerns about ASIC's actions in relation to the sanctions provided in the legislation administered, believing that they may not be effective and may not adequately reflect community perceptions of the seriousness of crime in crime white. Inconsistencies are noted in the sanctions imposed on companies. because it was noted that certain sanctionshave not been reviewed and amended since 1993. Commonwealth offences, compared to State offences, demonstrate a lack of consistency, where offenses with the same impact and illegality are treated in a distinctly different manner; it was found that offenses against the state carried higher penalties most of the time. It is believed that it is not ASIC's funding that is lacking, but rather the culture, and many blame ASIC for the amount of unresolved corporate misconduct in Australia. and repeated failures to protect consumer interests. For example, ASIC was aware that NRMA Insurance had deliberately misled its customers in 2006, and chose to desist and take no action. Even after policyholders complained to the Financial Ombudsman (FOS) about this misconduct, who reported to ASIC to resolve the issue, no real action has been taken and no conclusions have yet been reached . This is similar to many other current cases involving the misconduct of banks and insurance companies such as NAB, ANZ, Westpac and AMP, where their competence is called into question. Conduct of AMP and responsibilities of directors Who is AMP? AMP is a wealth management company providing solutions and services in many areas such as financial advice, investment management, banking, pensions, self-managed retirement funds (SMSF), life insurance , retirement income and investment. The body corporate was formed in 1849, having started out as the Australian Mutual Provident Society, handling life insurance. In 1998, AMP demutualized and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX), where the company's intentions changed. Customer wealth creation has shifted to executive greed, with the sole goal being to create money and increase shareholder wealth. This greed has taken over AMP in recent years, leading to illegal misconduct against customers, which has been noted in the media in recent years. In The Australian article, “Banking Royal Commission: Kenneth Hayne reveals super audience line-up”, it can be seen that the AMP culture has changed compared to previous years. In recent years, AMP has been found to be charging clients for financial advice they did not receive; this fault is known as a charge for no service. This behavior occurred between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2015, and during this period AMP misled ASIC and made false statements in this regard, suggesting that it was not about 'a deliberate action, even if it was later found that the intention was there. These actions do not meet community standards and expectations for the conduct of financial advice in these sectors, and several laws have been broken. Key Legal Issues AMP's misconduct is creating legal issues, due to numerous violations occurring over several years. Financial services licensees such as AMP must take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with particular sections of the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, but AMP may breach these rules. There are general obligations that financial services licensees must comply with and AMP contravenes sections 912A(1)(a), (c), (ca) and 912D(1)(b) of the Corporations Act . Financial services were not provided efficiently, honestly and equitably; the financial services law was not respected by representatives; and furthermore, the breaches were classified as significant and ASIC did notwas not always informed. AMP admitted that ASIC was misled on seven occasions by false and misleading statements regarding fees charged without service, which is a clear breach of section 1308(2). and section 1308(3) of the Companies Act and section 64 of the ASIC Act, due to the dishonest information provided. A provider such as AMP must also act in the best interests of the client in relation to advice, but this is not done because services have not been provided or clients have been offered quality financial products lower. The ASIC Act deals with accepting payments without intention. or the ability to supply as ordered, which AMP was dishonestly doing. This contravenes section 12DI(b) of the ASIC Act because AMP did not intend to provide the financial services it charged for, but the money was still received and held. All such violations may result in criminal penalties, civil penalties, disqualifications or commercial consequences, with potential liability. The Companies Act specifies four main duties for directors of a company: to act with the required degree of care and diligence, to act in good faith, not to use their position unduly and not to use information inappropriately. It is clear that the directors took advantage of clients and their positions and did not act in good faith, as they were intentionally dishonest and not acting in the best interests of AMP. This is a breach of their duties as a director and consequences will be implemented. Relevance of the Royal Commission to Company Law Royal Commission and potential recommendations Although no conclusions have been reached as to the consequences of these actions, potential suggestions have emerged from the Royal Commission Statements, Lawyers' Comments and Cases similar previous ones. Assisting barrister Rowena Orr said it was open to Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to conclude that AMP's behavior may have contravened certain criminal provisions of the Corporations Act. The provisions of Articles 184 and 1308(2), for example, provide for sanctions of 200 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, and 100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, respectively. If the commissioner adopts the suggestions of the lawyer assisting him, the AMP may face criminal prosecution due to the deceptive theft they committed. Civil suits are very likely to be brought due to violations of the civil provisions, in addition to a possible restraining order against directors due to violations. Many directors have already resigned and one AMP financial advisor has been banned for five years, demonstrating that significant action is being taken by ASIC. Regulators are changing their approach to white-collar crime. ASIC and APRA are both changing and undergoing reforms in order to be more successful in capturing these types of misconduct by large companies, as it is clearly a growing problem in the financial sector. In the past in particular, ASIC culture has been seen as weak and inconsistent, so strengthening this regulator is vital. ASIC has conducted numerous monitoring programs which have led to several public reports, such as the ASIC 499 report which focuses on non-service fees in relation to large institutions such as AMP, ANZ and NAB , which led to legislative review and reforms. their power has been limited for several years, but recent government reforms will significantly expand the scope of capabilities.