The corporate regulator has announced the completion of an independent review of ANZ OnePath’s compliance functions announced in March this year.
The review was conducted by PwC, and made six recommendations for improvements to OnePath’s compliance framework, according to a statement.
OnePath has implemented four of these recommendations and has committed to complete the other two by early 2017, the statement said.
ASIC said it will continue to monitor OnePath’s implementation of the final two recommendations. The statement does not explain what the recommendations are.
In March, sister publication ifa reported on an ASIC announcement that OnePath will be reviewed after ANZ reported breaches in relation to its life, general insurance, superannuation and funds management activities.
ASIC's March announcement said around 1.3 million customers were affected by the breaches from early 2013 to mid-2015, requiring refunds and compensation of around $4.5 million, and also required rectifications and other remediation of about $49 million.
1,400 superannuation fund members had $28.7 million in contributions allocated to the incorrect super account for a period up to 12 months.
ANZ has returned these funds to the correct accounts and provided over $400,000 in compensation for lost earnings and/or incorrect fees, the statement said.
OnePath also failed to take further action in relation to 21,000 cheques it had sent to customers that were not banked within 15 months.
These cheques included proceeds of insurance claims, superannuation benefits and refunds of premiums. $2.9 million was ultimately returned to customers, with a further $11.6 million treated as unclaimed monies.
ASIC was concerned that these breaches reflected compliance issues, which may impact the AFSL obligations of entities within the ANZ Group.
Other breaches include failure to provide disclosure documentation for some insurance products and having inadequate systems or processes to ensure compliance.
"In some cases processes did not ensure reasonable steps were taken to contact customers or that statutory timeframes were met. Some processes included manual steps that were not followed up on," ASIC said.
Further, there was insufficient supervision of some outsourced functions as well as some processing errors, such as payments made to incorrect superannuation accounts.
SUBSCRIBE TO THE IFA DAILY BULLETIN
- 14 Dec 2018ASIC clarifies RG 146 requirements for advisersBy Adrian Flores
- 14 Dec 2018Sargon Capital acquires listed robo adviserBy James Mitchell
- 14 Dec 2018Industry body flags CPD burden under FASEA proposalBy Adrian Flores
- 14 Dec 2018Adviser exodus creating ‘enormous opportunity’ for accountantsBy Jotham Lian
- 14 Dec 2018Advisers embracing ESG investing, says surveyBy Adrian Flores
- 13 Dec 2018AFA picks apart CPD policy from FASEABy Adrian Flores
- view all