Key points
- ASIC’s enforcement momentum has continued to accelerate, with more investigations, more actions and stronger outcomes.
- Subject to upcoming court decisions, we will likely see more civil penalties imposed in 2025 than ever before; together with the longest term of imprisonment imposed following an ASIC investigation.
- Private credit practices, financial reporting misconduct, insurance complaints and claims handling, and misleading pricing are among a range of new enforcement priorities ASIC has unveiled for 2026.
Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here to announce our enforcement priorities for 2026, and to provide to you a report on our work of this year.
I want to start though, with a reflection on ASIC’s enforcement posture.
We are often asked why ASIC needs to take a strong enforcement approach. The suggestion seems to be that we should rather call out the issue of concern, allow the firm involved to remedy it, and avoid the cost and uncertainty of court-based litigation.
Apart from the obvious answer that we are not, and never will be, the compliance arm of large corporations, the following example is telling.
ASIC Commissioners are frequently guests around board tables where we engage with directors and senior executives about the important work that we do.
At one recent such engagement I mentioned a 2023 ‘pricing promises’ case ASIC had taken against insurer RACQ. RACQ ultimately admitted to this misconduct, which involved misleading documents sent on millions of occasions, to nearly half a million customers. They collectively missed out on some $86m worth of discounts. A significant penalty was imposed, and there was widespread media attention.
A woman at the board table was a former senior executive of another insurer.
While that insurer had long been aware of pricing promise issues and the potential for problems of its own, until that point those problems had been secondary. Following this court action, she said the focus changed overnight. There was an immediate review of all pricing promises, whereupon widespread irregularities were discovered.
What was interesting about this swift reprioritisation was the broader industry context. The sector was well on notice of ASIC’s concerns on this issue, and there was widescale remediation in place.
Despite that fact it was only court action against another like firm that finally prompted this insurer to review, reprioritise and remediate. Therein lies the power of enforcement.
As an aside, there is much written at present about improving productivity through better or simpler regulation, or by reducing regulatory burden. We strongly support these efforts, and have our own simplification work underway.
But I have heard suggestion, in some quarters, that such focus necessarily implies some reduction in enforcement. We do not accept this to be the case.
Strong and active corporate law enforcement means the rules of the game are clear, the playing field is level and those breaking the law are held to account. These are all critical for consumer trust and confidence, and properly functioning markets, both essential elements for productivity improvement.
Themes of misconduct
As I reflect on last year’s enforcement work a clear theme emerges.
Despite much talk of regulatory complexity and overload, the uncertainty of AI and technology advances, it is not compliance failures in these emerging and complex areas we most frequently see.
Rather – it’s the basics, things like getting right the interest rates you promised your customers, or not misleading about premium renewal increases.
We are frequently told by those we investigate that compliance matters. Indeed, there are teams of professionals employed in all these institutions to avoid the very conduct failures we observe.
In thinking about this issue when preparing for today two cases came to mind. The first from many years ago, the Visy cardboard box cartel, where, in response to Visy’s reliance on its voluminous trade practices compliance manual, the judge wryly observed that the manual might well have been written in Sanskrit for all the notice anybody took of it.
The second matter is much more recent. You’ll no doubt be aware that ASIC recently filed several proceedings against ANZ. The matters remain before the Court so I will be necessarily circumspect in my remarks.
All I need to say for present purposes is that in relation to one of those matters ANZ admitted serious misconduct, indeed unconscionable conduct, in relation to the manner of trading in its role as duration manager for a significant bond issuance by the Australian government.
So where, you might ask, were the compliance professionals at the time of this transaction?
Well, in facts admitted by the bank, they were in the trading room. And none of those representatives raised concerns about the conduct. Nor was any record made that there had been a contravention of ANZ’s own policies.
What both these examples suggest is the importance of substance over form. It doesn’t matter if there is a thick compliance manual if no-one pays it any attention. It doesn’t matter if compliance professionals are in the room if poor conduct and breaches of company policy are not immediately called out.
Picking up on a point made by the Director-General Mike Burgess when he spoke yesterday; it doesn’t matter if you’re recording all the loggings if no one is reading the logs.
2025 in review
Before turning to our 2025 work it’s worth reflecting on why we set priorities in the first place: first it provides transparency; second, it gives clarity for case selection and resource allocation; and third, it has a deterrence effect in those areas in and of itself.
Finally, and importantly, it holds us to account - have we done what we said we would do?
Within that framework, let me turn to our recent work.
Subject to upcoming Court decisions, we will likely see more civil penalties imposed in 2025 than ever before; together with the longest term of imprisonment imposed following an ASIC investigation.
Our enforcement momentum has continued to accelerate and we have more investigations, more actions and stronger outcomes – delivering timely, visible, and deterrence driven enforcement.
We have worked intensively on increasing our investigation numbers, with the aim to consider more matters, review them more quickly and, if there is no further work to do, to close them promptly to allow resources to move elsewhere.
High risk superannuation switching
I will turn first to two of our 2025 priority areas where we have seen, most unfortunately, some convergence. These are the areas of misconduct exploiting superannuation savings and high-risk property investment.
Our work in relation to the failures of the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds has been extensively dealt with elsewhere. However, in reflecting on the year gone by it is important to recognise the tireless work of our ASIC investigators to execute warrants, freeze assets, obtain restraint orders, ban advisors, cancel licences, liaise with investors and commence the important work of holding those responsible to account for the catastrophic investor outcomes associated with the failures of these funds.
Those involved extend to financial advisors and their licensees, lead generators, superannuation trustees, auditors, research houses and, at the very heart of the misconduct, the responsible entities of the failed funds themselves.
We already have had some 45 individual court appearances and there remains much work to do.
We have instituted proceedings against Macquarie and Equity Trustees, and I can advise today that we have commenced proceedings against:
SQM Research for preparing reports and publishing favourable ratings for Shield – the first time ASIC has taken action against a research house.
Interprac Financial Planning for allegedly exposing thousands of Australians to poor financial advice before they invested around $670 million of superannuation into these funds; and
We will seek leave to commence proceedings against MWL Financial Services, a former director and Imperial Capital Group – a lead generator – for allegedly operating a scheme resulting in hundreds of clients investing superannuation into Shield.
This means we have 10 separate Federal Court proceedings against 18 defendants, and we have more to come.
We will not rest until our work on these matters is complete and those responsible have been properly held to account. One of our enforcement priorities for next year is therefore continuing our work to hold those responsible to account for the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds.
Member services failures
Our broader superannuation focus this year has been ‘member services failures’. These failures take many forms. This year we have seen Australian Super, trustee of Australia’s largest superannuation fund, pay a $27m penalty for failing to merge multiple member accounts.
We again sued Australian Super, and separately Cbus, over what we allege to be the delayed processing of thousands of death benefit claims.
Despite these outcomes, and several more in the area, we consider there remains much work for us to do. In 2026, we will continue our work in holding trustees to account for member services failures.
Insurance
Turning then to insurance, this year we prioritised enforcement work in terms of failures by insurers to deal fairly and in good faith with their customers.
We took RACQ to Court for sending thousands of customers renewal notices containing what we allege to be misleading comparison pricing. We took action against Hollard Insurance in relation to a claim taking more than three years to resolve. And we took action against Choosi Pty Ltd, alleging it falsely represented it compared products from a range of insurers, when in fact, in all but one instance, it compared policies from a single insurer, thereby depriving consumers of choice.
In the current environment, with premiums ever-increasing, claims rising and insurance becoming increasingly out of reach, we will continue our focus on this sector. This year we will particularly look at claims and complaint handling failures.
Credit and vulnerable customers
The protection of financially vulnerable consumers is an enduring enforcement priority. This year we have focused particularly on business models designed to avoid consumer credit protections with continued work to defeat Full Court and High Court appeals from various Cigno entities, and court actions taken against Swoosh and Rent4Keeps.
In this category, those of you with teenage children may have endured, as I did, the travails of Married at First Sight.
If so, you will have also seen the bombardment of advertising by credit provider Snaffle, which brands itself as the home of ‘bite-size payments’. Far from bite size we allege that Snaffle inflated prices, charged for delivery fees never incurred, and overcharged its customers. Court proceedings were filed in May.
Last year we also introduced a new priority relating to debt management and debt collection. We commenced proceedings against CashnGo (Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd) alleging it engaged in unconscionable debt recovery practices; employed unfair contract terms and failed to provide compliant default notices to thousands of its consumers.
We will continue our focus, for self-evident reasons, on misconduct exploiting consumers facing financial difficulty including predatory credit practices.
Greenwashing
On greenwashing, we this year bring to conclusion our intense focus in this area, with a penalty imposed on Active Super for misleading ESG representations, and new proceedings against Fiducian Investment Management Services.
We have now secured a number of impactful decisions in this area and sent a clear message that promises to investors about where their funds will be directed must be honoured.
While greenwashing will not be an express enforcement priority for 2026, we remain alert to the risk of serious instances of misleading and deceptive conduct in this area.
Cyber
As we heard from the ASIO Director-General yesterday, cyber-security is a pressing issue.
A priority for us this year has been licensee failures to have adequate cyber-security protections, given the significant sensitive and confidential information they hold.
We took Court action against financial advice business Fortnum Private Wealth, and separately against FIIG Securities, alleging failures to properly mitigate and manage cybersecurity risks.
Auditors
Auditors are another financial system participant with an important protective role given their unique position to identify and limit misconduct. The failure of auditors to meet required standards can have serious consequences for investors and erode trust and confidence in our markets.
This year has seen CADB determinations concerning auditors of iSignthis Ltd, Greensill and United Global Capital; and the auditor of Brite Advisors surrendering their registration and undertaking never to reapply.
While we have made some progress, we consider there remains work for us to do. Auditor misconduct therefore remains an enforcement priority next year.
Insider trading
We identified the strengthening of our investigation and prosecution of insider trading as an important focus for 2025.
These crimes impact all Australians’ share market and super fund investments. We stood up a specialist team to solely focus on this issue.
A notable outcome this year includes charges laid against former investment manager Rodney Forrest for trading, and procuring others to trade, in Platinum Asset Management shares while in possession of inside information. Mr Forrest’s guilty plea was an important first outcome of this team.
Australia is internationally known for its clean market. We are determined to keep it that way. We consider that the work of our specialist insider trading team will continue this work in 2026.
Enduring priorities
While our annual enforcement priorities have a significant role to play, some misconduct causes such significant harm that we will always elevate it for attention. One enduring priority is misconduct that damages market integrity including market manipulation, breaches of continuous disclosure and corporate governance failures.
Cases this year include allegations of manipulation of the ASX 24 market for electricity futures contracts by Delta Power & Energy, and Societe Generale Securities Australia, one of the largest participants in the same market, fined $3.88m for failing to prevent suspicious orders being placed.
In relation to continuous disclosure, iSignthis Ltd was ordered to pay $10m penalty for deliberate acts of non-disclosure and providing false and misleading information to the ASX; proceedings were commenced against Regional Express Holdings (administrators appointed) and the West Australian Wiluna gold mining company alleging breaches of disclosure obligations.
Individuals
This brings me to a common question about our corporate governance enforcement - how we make decisions about joining individuals.
It is increasingly clear to us that the public expects that individuals in senior corporate positions will be held to account for the misconduct of their organisation.
This year saw former managing director and chief executive officer of iSignThis, penalised $1m and disqualified for six years from managing corporations, and a director of Open4Sale Global fined $2m, for what the Court described as ‘a disgraceful course of conduct’.
But the most significant enforcement outcome for misconduct by individuals is the referral of a brief for criminal prosecution.
This year has seen important outcomes that should deter those who seek to profit from fraud and criminal misconduct.
Most significantly, Perth fraudster Chris Marco was sentenced to 14 years in prison with 12 years non-parole, for offences resulting in the loss of $34m to investors.
The sentence was the highest imposed by an Australian court following an ASIC investigation, and the conclusion of the matter was a significant milestone highlighting rigorous and thorough work by our investigators and legal teams.
What’s new in 2026
I have already mentioned a number of priorities that we will continue in 2026. In addition to those, it will surprise no-one following the Chair’s address to the Press Club last week that we are elevating our enforcement work on poor private credit practices.
This new enforcement priority should send a message to the rapidly expanding private credit sector to get its governance right. It comes on the back of our recent private credit fund surveillance report that highlights significant room for improvement.
Indeed, the Shield and First Guardian schemes are examples of private credit fund models.
We are also increasing the spotlight on financial reporting misconduct, including failures to lodge financial reports.
Financial reports provide shareholders, creditors and the public with important information to enable them to make informed decisions. We have launched a surveillance focused on non-lodgement of financial reports by large proprietary companies, and we expect to complete this next year.
We recognise small business as the lifeblood of the economy. We know that small business owners are frustrated when directors of other businesses are not held to account for evading small business creditors and failing to pay their bills.
We have previously sought to focus on these issues but recognise there is work to be done. We have tasked two additional enforcement teams to focus on these matters to further deliver on our priority focus on unlawful practices that evade small business creditors.
I want to conclude this list where I started, with a focus on consumers. Whether it be big banks, insurance companies, credit providers or superannuation trustees, we will continue our focus in 2026 on misleading pricing practices impacting cost of living for Australians.
Conclusion
So, what should you take from these remarks? I will leave you with this:
First, we are an extremely active enforcement agency.
Second, we do what we say we are going to do.
Third, we will continue to prioritise systemic compliance failures by large institutions.
Fourth, we have an active criminal investigation program, and we are determined to see-through complex and resource intensive investigations to their end.
And finally, our commitment to enforcement, where necessary and appropriate, is unwavering. We will continue to hold companies and individuals to account to drive productivity and create a level playing field for all.
