Table showing ASIC’s treatment of ANZ and CBA compared to Dover: further evidence of ASIC’s general unconscionable conduct towards Dover
Organisation ANZ CBA Dover
Responsible ASIC staff member Tim Mullaly Tim Mullaly Tim Mullaly
Matter Unqualified personal advice Unqualified personal advice Client protection policy
Time period behaviour occurred 6 years 5 years 2.5 years
Did behaviour harm clients? Yes Yes No
Did institution know the conduct harmed clients? Yes Not known NA
Monies taken from clients? $3,600,000,000 $3,700,000,000 None
On-going annual benefit such as management fees? $36,000,000 (1%) $37,000,000 (1%) None
Effect on market capitalisation (6%)

(ie increase in shareholder wealth)

$600,000,000 $617,000,000 None
Did the institution know of risk (at board level)? Yes Not known No
Did the institution believe its licence was at risk? Yes Not Known No
Did the institution dispute ASIC’s view? Yes Yes No
Did the institution cooperate with ASIC’s investigation? Not known No Yes
Length of dispute Four years Four years NA
Time taken to cease activity? Four years Four years One day
Did ASIC require remediation? No No Yes
If remediation was required, was it completed efficiently? NA NA Yes
How long did remediation take? NA NA 14 days
Did ASIC require a penalty? No No Yes
Did the organisation suggest a penalty? Yes Yes No
Amount of penalty suggested by organisation? $1,000,000 $1,250,000 NA
Did ASIC cancel licence? No No Yes
Did ASIC issue misleading press releases? No No Yes
Did the Royal Commission include the matter in the organisation’s “rubric” (agenda of matters to be discussed)? Yes Yes No
Did the organisation otherwise know the matter would be the object of questions at the Royal Commission? Yes Yes No, it was an ambush
Did ASIC provide information/notice to the organisation before providing information the Royal Commission of its concerns? Yes, it knew well in advance Yes, it knew well in advance No, it was an ambush
Did ASIC publicly say it expects the organisation to breach the financial services law again? No No Yes
Has the organisation previously entered into enforceable undertakings for financial services law breaches? Yes Yes No
Has ASIC otherwise previously alleged the organisation has breached financial services laws? Yes Yes No
Did the organisation appear in other matters before the Royal Commission in connection with other breaches of the financial services law? Yes Yes No
Were these other breaches significant and repetitive? Yes Yes NA
Was the organisation allowed to continue the original behaviour? Yes, for 45 days Yes, for 49 days No
Has ASIC allowed a similar modified form of the original behaviour to continue? Yes Yes No
Did ASIC enter into an enforceable undertaking? Yes Yes Yes
Was the enforceable undertaking an alternative to legal action? Yes Yes No
Is ASIC commencing legal action to obtain declarations the organisation breached the financial services law? No No Yes
Is ASIC seeking court ordered penalties from the organisation? No No Yes
Is ASIC seeking court ordered penalties from an employee or director? No No Yes
Did ASIC publicly warn other AFSLs about the behaviour? No No Yes
Did ASIC publicly recommend the organisation’s clients receive a second opinion from a different adviser? No No Yes
Did ASIC publicly say any person was deceptive? No No Yes
Did ASIC publicly say any person was of poor fame and character No No Yes
Estimate of the relative cost to ASIC? Very high Very high Very low