Made public last week, the report reveals there was no evidence of front-running detected at IOOF. However, it also states PwC did not have access to the employee who made the allegations nor was PwC able to request information from staff within the research department, about which some of the allegations were made.
“Our services have been primarily based upon the information provided by IOOF. We have relied on and not verified the truth or accuracy of all information or material provided or made available to us during our engagement,” the report said.
“We do not assume any responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information provided by you and on your behalf,” the report said.
According to the ABC, Labor Senator Sam Dastyari has called the report a “whitewash.”
“This is a report that was created with the sole intention of minimising their own liabilities,” Senator Dastyari told ABC’s AM program.
“What you have is a culture of cover-up within IOOF which frankly appears to go to the top.”
The PwC report was made public ahead of today’s second Senate hearing at which more IOOF executives will be interrogated, including IOOF chairmen Roger Sexton, company secretary Danielle Corcoran and head of investigations Rob Urwin.
The hearing follows allegations of front-running and insider trading at IOOF sparked by Fairfax Media news reports.
Last month, the committee grilled IOOF managing director Chris Kelaher, who reiterated there was no systemic failure at the $2.6 billion financial services giant that required it to inform ASIC.
Mr Kelaher said a PwC inquiry found no evidence of front-running detected. He later agreed to turn over that PwC report to the committee.
In depth reporter – you are making a lot of assumptions here – a whistle-blower is that because they don’t want to be named – the industry is too small and he/she would not get a job anywhere if found out
Also, where there is smoke there is fire and i can assure you that if stockbrokers are properly investigated ASIC will find many more cases of front running and certainly not just at IOOF – they should go and have a look at the stockbroking houses and i am sure they will be kept busy
Instead of cherry picking parts to suit an agenda, why not undertake proper levels of journalism and present facts in a manner that shows integrity?
1. The ‘whistleblower’ refused to talk to PWC or even IOOF, despite several requests.
2. The allegations were historic – many years before the ‘whistleblower’ ever worked there.
3. The ‘whistleblower’ stole many files, refused to return them, and then tried to blackmail the managers for hefty sums of money.
4. The PWC report was forensic in nature – it focused on transactions and timings, NOT ‘he said, she said’ events, as such, it doesn’t need to consider people’s opinions and thoughts and feelings – such forensic reports don’t need to interview people for their views – in fact, it is better they don’t. The Fairwork investigation was doing this at the same time, and found the ‘whistleblower’ had NO case, and supported the firing of him giving the extent of his MANY criminal acts.
Come on IFA – I appreciate you copy and past from Fairfax, but when Fairfax is outright lying, using criminally obtained information to target staff, and deliberatly omitting facts in order to deceive, and you copy and paste them, you knowingly contribute to the lies.
Disgusting – they must have taken lessons from CBA/Financial Wisdom