X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
No Results
View All Results
Home News

ASIC gave CBA severe discount for misleading conduct

The Hayne royal commission has learned that the corporate watchdog allowed CBA to pay a substantially reduced fine despite misleading customers in its advertising.

by Staff Writer
September 17, 2018
in News
Reading Time: 2 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The royal commission heard on Friday that ASIC not only gave CBA a severe discount for the misleading conduct but also let Australia’s biggest bank draft the media release regarding the action.

Senior counsel assisting Rowena Orr, QC opened Thursday’s hearing by questioning Helen Troup, the executive general manager of CBA’s insurance business CommInsure.

X

Ms Troup was taken through four pieces of advertising for CommInsure’s life and trauma insurance policy to determine how they discussed coverage for a heart attack.

Ms Troup accepted that in every case someone reading the adverts would believe the trauma policy covered all heart attacks.

The royal commission heard that CommInsure made a $300,000 voluntary community benefit payment as part of its agreement with ASIC to resolve the issue of misleading advertising.

Ms Orr pointed out to the Commission that the maximum penalty for misleading conduct was 10,000 penalty units or almost $2 million per contravention.

In this instance, as Ms Troup had agreed to four adverts being misleading, it could have led to a fine of $8 million. But CommInsure only had to pay $300,000 as part of its agreement with ASIC to resolve the issue.

ASIC in fact seemed to have asked CBA if they thought the $300,000 was appropriate, as Ms Orr read out to the commission a letter from the senior executive of ASIC, Tim Mullaly, addressed to CBA:

“Could you please consider and let us know whether this is sufficient for CommInsure to resolve the matter, including by way of payment of the community benefit payment, in absence of infringement notices.”

This provoked Commissioner Kenneth Hayne to ask if it was a case of the bank stipulating the terms of the punishment.

“The regulator asking the regulated whether the proposal was sufficient in the eyes of the party alleged to have broken the law, is that right?” he asked.

“We could have taken the approach of continuing to defend our position, so this was the alternative,” Ms Troup said.

Commissioner Hayne continued and asked Ms Troup if CommInsure viewed the community payment as a form of punishment.

“The $300,000 community benefit payment was a form of punishment,” she said.

Up until today’s hearing, CBA had not acknowledged the misleading adverts and had even advised ASIC on what language to use in their press release, said Ms Orr.

Ms Orr concluded by summarising that ASIC had given CommInsure notice of its findings, took no enforceable action and gave CommInsure the opportunity to make changes to the media release.

Related Posts

How mapping client emotions can transform apprehension into trust

by Keith Ford
November 11, 2025
1

Clients undergo a range of emotional responses throughout the advice process and, according to new financial adviser-led research, advisers’ ability...

Iress launches business efficiency program for FY26

by Olivia Grace-Curran
November 11, 2025
0

The financial services software firm said its renewed focus on core platforms, technology investment and client engagement reflects a leaner,...

Regulator updates guidance for exchange-traded products

by Shy-ann Arkinstall
November 11, 2025
0

ASIC has released a new regulatory guide for exchange-traded products that consolidates previous guidance as the ETF market undergoes significant...

Comments 2

  1. Anonymous says:
    7 years ago

    What about the current case being tossed around that it could be more of an issue of…”Is $300K ok as I’d like to work for you guys next year in some over paid role”.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous says:
    7 years ago

    I have written of this type of treatment for the big end of town many times, Still going on and it seems the argument goes something like, fine us, fine our shareholders and they are ordinary Australian’s? In reality if the fines were aligned to the deed and shareholders were affected then this would affect management. Management would be held responsible for the bottom line outcomes and may even think twice about compliance.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VIEW ALL
Promoted Content

Private Credit in Transition: Governance, Growth, and the Road Ahead

Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.

by Zagga
October 29, 2025
Promoted Content

Boring can be brilliant: why steady investing builds lasting wealth

Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...

by Zagga
September 30, 2025
Promoted Content

Helping clients build wealth? Boring often works best.

Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.

by Zagga
September 26, 2025
Promoted Content

Navigating Cardano Staking Rewards and Investment Risks for Australian Investors

Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....

by Underfive
September 4, 2025

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

Poll

This poll has closed

Do you have clients that would be impacted by the proposed Division 296 $3 million super tax?
Vote
www.ifa.com.au is a digital platform that offers daily online news, analysis, reports, and business strategy content that is specifically designed to address the issues and industry developments that are most relevant to the evolving financial planning industry in Australia. The platform is dedicated to serving advisers and is created with their needs and interests as the primary focus.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About IFA

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Risk
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Promoted Content
  • Video
  • Profiles
  • Events

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited