Tim Mullaly, ASIC’s Executive Director of Financial Services Enforcement hurriedly, responds to a long awaited phone call from AMP’s senior lawyer. At about 10.00pm the same night. Tim bends over backwards to go the extra mile. Tim cannot get there fast enough. Tim will bring the team with him.
Shows how dropping names makes a big impact on senior ASIC executives. Tim loved it.
Email from ASIC’s Tim Mullaly dated 18 October 2017, 8.57PM.
ASIC’s Andrew Davison advised Dover ASIC could meet with Dover while an investigation is on foot. He could not provide any feedback, he wrote.
Dover now knows Andrew Davison was “being less than complete”. ASIC provided intra-surveillance feedback to the bank-owned AFSLs all the time.
AMP’s Brian Salter e-mailed Tim Mullaly and Peter Kell at 3.52 PM on 18 October 2017 asking if he and AMP’s Jack Regan could meet “at the earliest opportunity”. Tim Mullaly stayed up late to dutifully respond at nearly 10.00pm that same night “… we would be happy to meet and would look also to up-date you on our work…”.
Tim went the extra mile to give AMP an up-date on ASIC’s investigations. Not just a meeting. An ASIC up-date as well. Exactly what Andrew Davison said ASIC could not do for Dover. Tim went that mile despite what the Royal Commission identified as probable criminal behaviour on the part of AMP.
The AMP team at the urgently convened AMP/ASIC meeting allegedly falsified the documents they gave Tim at that meetings. Yet Dover could not get a phone call returned.
It’s pretty obvious Tim wanted to damage Dover. And Tim did not want to damage AMP. Yet Dover was 100% cooperative and genuine in its dealings with ASIC and AMP was definitely not: it went to desperate efforts to actively mislead ASIC.
It does not make sense does it? Why did ASIC treat Dover so differently?