ASIC v Bekier (Star)
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Penalty Judgment) [2026] FCA 756 the Federal Court disqualified former Star Entertainment Group Limited executives Mathias Bekier and Paula Martin from managing corporations for six and seven years respectively and ordered them to pay pecuniary penalties for breaching their duties by failing to properly manage serious risks at a publicly listed casino operator . Background.
The Court ordered:
* Mr Bekier, the former Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, to pay a pecuniary penalty of $700,000 .
* Ms Martin, the former General Counsel, Company Secretary, and Chief Legal and Risk Officer, to pay a pecuniary penalty of $400,000.
ASIC V Westpac (Hardship case)
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation [2026] FCA 651, Westpac was ordered to pay $26 million in civil penalties for failing to respond to customers who were facing financial hardship.
Westpac contravened section 72 of the National Credit with respect to a total of 277 online hardship notices within the time required by law.
The Court also accepted that Westpac failed to engage in credit activities efficiently, honestly and fairly as required by section 47 of the Credit Act due to its failure to implement adequate systems, controls, risk reviews, investigations, monitoring and analysis of the systems and processes it utilised in relation to online hardship notices.
The requests were made by customers of Westpac and its subsidiaries St George Bank, Bank SA and Bank of Melbourne – who notified they were experiencing financial hardship and were struggling to meet repayments on products including home loans, credit cards, personal loans and car loans.
Scam protection failures
In ASIC v HSBC Bank, ASIC announced that the Federal Court ordered HSBC Bank Australia Limited (HSBC) to pay a $35 million penalty and to publish adverse publicity orders on its website, its app and in letters to impacted customers after the bank admitted to serious failures in protecting customers from scams.
The Court found that HSBC had implemented scam controls on some of its payment systems but did not implement the key controls on the IAT (internal) payment rail, where the majority of customer losses occurred.
HSBC admitted to failures in relation to the ePayments Code because it took too long to investigate customer scam reports – 144 days on average – and it did not apply rules in the Code for determining when customers or the bank should bear the losses from scams. HSBC also admitted that it did not have adequate systems in place to help customers get back into their banking after they had been scammed.
The Court held that HSBC’s failures in respect of the ePayments code were widespread and systemic.
Following ASIC’s investigation, HSBC has established a large-scale remediation program that, to date, has paid around $21.5 million in compensation, with further payments to come before the end of July 2026. HSBC has also recovered $6.5 million and returned those funds to customers.
Overcharging on consumer goods credit contracts
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Walker Stores Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] FCA 665 the Federal Court ordered a $33.5 million penalty against online retailer Walker Stores Pty Ltd (in liquidation), which traded as Snaffle, for unlawfully overcharging tens of thousands of consumers under credit contracts.
Snaffle carried on an online business supplying consumer goods, including home appliances and furniture to consumers by way of “credit contracts” with repayments by instalments over 12, 24 or 36 months.
Between September 2021 and 27 February 2025, Walker Stores entered into 38,562 credit contracts.
By charging consumers significantly more under those credit contracts than it was permitted to, and by failing to disclose to consumers information about those credit contracts, Walker Stores contravened the requirements of the Credit Code in 3 ways:.
First, by entering into contracts pursuant to which it sold goods at marked-up prices, Walker Stores breached s 32A of the Code, which imposes a cap on the cost of credit by way of the annual cost rate or ACR, and thereby contravened s 24(1) of the Code.
Second, the contract documents comprising each sample contract failed to set out the cash price and amount of credit provided, and thereby contravened ss 17(3)(a)(i) and 17(3)(c) of the Code, which is a “key requirement” contravention but not a civil penalty contravention.
Third, with respect to all 38,562 credit contracts entered into during the relevant period including the sample contracts, Walker Stores imposed an interest charge in excess of the maximum amount permitted under s 28 of the Code.
High Court decides digital asset product is a financial product
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Web3 Ventures Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 21 the High Court decided that the fixed-yield digital asset product ‘Earner’ offered by Block Earner was a financial product as it was a facility through which an investor made a financial investment., and that Block Earner consequently required an Australian financial services licence.
Background.
The High Court also accepted ASIC’s argument that Earner was a derivative as the amount returned to investors varied by reference to the value of the digital asset and exchange rates.
If you found this article helpful, then subscribe to our news emails to keep up to date and look at our video courses for in-depth training. Use the search box at the top right of this page or the categories list on the right hand side of this page to check for other articles on the same or related matters.
Author: David Jacobson
Principal, Bright Corporate Law
Email:
About David Jacobson
The information contained in this article is not legal advice. It is not to be relied upon as a full statement of the law. You should seek professional advice for your specific needs and circumstances before acting or relying on any of the content.
