The Australian banker is a smug species, arguably more than his international peers. Caught off guard by the financial disasters of the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Australian banking system has become an expression of a classic oligopoly, manipulating prices and squeezing customers. Such an Australian banker is perky as well, self-assured that any inappropriate, let alone illegal behaviour, might be passed off as an effort to do better, to buck trends, to be audacious.
Over the last few weeks, AUSTRAC has had little time for that audacity. The financial intelligence agency and regulator had picked up on suspicious transactions made through the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s “intelligence deposit machines” numbering over 53,000 and exceeding the legal $10,000 limit. The machines in question were part of a CBA modernisation scheme, involving 40 new deposit ATMs that would permit the register of cash deposits in real time.
The bubbly language from such individuals as chief information officer, Michael Harte, has been that of frat boy enthusiasm, the optimist without limits. “If you don’t open channels, if you don’t have rich relationship data and real-time services you cannot lead the market and you cannot change the game.”
Harte’s point has been breakneck speed, acceleration, briskness. Transactions need immediacy. Money should not be kept in transit, a state of costly languishing that renders the bank unattractive for the client. “With real-time banking at the core, we have enabled instant transfer of value between parties. We aren’t holding money for days; we know our customers don’t want this. We know banks and others are disliked for this.”
Such enthusiasm has bucked and fronted the law. Harte’s program has fallen foul of a conventional problem in this field: the mechanism, fashioned as such, is not necessarily conducive to the regulators. In all likelihood, it might hold such regulation in contempt, enabling money to be given a good rinse or bolstering the financial security of designated terrorist organisations.
Not that the CBA is indifferent to playing the card of brute cynicism: having set up a system achingly attractive for abuse, it advertises the opposite with professional panache. “At CommBank we are committed to fighting money laundering and terrorism financing.” A look shot, it would seem, both ways.
True to form, the machines have been used by a range of parties not otherwise on the “approved” list. Not that the CBA were ignorant of the fact. By admission of CBA chairwoman Catherine Livingstone, the board were first alerted to the money laundering risks posed by the intelligent deposit machines in the second half of 2015.
Various sumptuous morsels can be found in the weighty 583 page statement outlining AUSTRAC’s grievance against the CBA. Among them are instances of one customer placing vast sums of cash through the Intelligence Deposit Machines outside the doors of the Leichardt Marketplace branch in Sydney’s inner west.
Foiled by an unusually attentive branch manager, the person in question made his dash, and deposited the rest of his proceeds at the bank’s Mascot branch. By the end of that June day in 2015, $670,420, compromising 13,000 notes or so of mostly $50 notes, had found its way into the CBA.
The daring individual behind the venture was Yeun Hong Fung, a man so enterprising he had used 29 identities to launder money derived from methamphetamine sales to Hong Kong-based accounts. This was no mean feat for a man who had been deported three times yet able to return to Australia on 34 occasions using false passports.
Such feats were not a point of concern for CBA chief executive Ian Narev. Things, he suggested, happened all the time. Far from it for him or members of the board to take note, let alone inform investors, of the seriousness of such financial misconduct. “In an organisation of this size,” he said with casual contempt, “there are individual items that come to the attention of the board and management from regulators and others all the time.”
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has gotten industrious on this point, promising to investigate the bank’s celebrated modern practices, notably whether it complied with the disclosure provisions outlined in the Corporations Act. The licensing requirements “to act efficiently, honestly and fairly” will be part of the remit.
“I want to inform the committee,” explained ASIC’s Greg Medcraft to a parliamentarian joint committee last week, “that ASIC has commenced inquiries into this matter and any consequences this matter has for the laws we administer.”
The teeth behind the investigation will come from AUSTRAC, which promises, should the evidence stack up, heavy fines. On Monday morning, the bank shed its first appointed casualty, announcing the very mild, obvious if delayed sacrifice of Narev.
Chairman Livingstone informed the press that the “succession” plan had been brought forward, meaning that Narev would be stepping down at the end of this year. His pay packet has also been given a decent pruning – 50 per cent of it, to be precise. Short-term bonuses for all senior executives for the 2017 financial year were also shelved.
All this is small beer, given that one of Australia’s golden institutions has found itself caught in mid-flight. In an effort to achieve Harte’s dream of speed and efficiency in moving capital, it embraced that old wisdom from the Roman Emperor Vespasian about money having no smell: pecunia non olet, as it were.
[textblock style=”6″]
Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. He was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge. He is a contributing editor to CounterPunch and can be followed on Twitter at @bkampmark.
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
Thank you Binoy, I don’t expect a significant fine for their greed, the banks reputation stinks of malpractice. The NLP would rather place people into poverty than deal with corporate criminal activity.
I suppose that the ‘cat and mouse’ games which we observe from time-to-time, between the banks and the so-called ‘regulators’ and ‘watch dogs’ such as ASIC, APRA and AUSTRAC will continue for the foreseeable future. The fact that this is really only a charade is apparent to some of us. The only really effective way of dealing with malfeasance in the finance sector is not to hold a Royal Commission which, at best, may stall some of the sector’s more egregious activities but to nationalize the industry and run it as a public service. The way this industry has been conducting itself since it was deregulated by Hawke and Keating has been nothing short of a national scandal and total disgrace.
Re Narev and the comment:
Re the 50% of it to be precise. Not sure about that. What is the definition of pay packet used here? Salary, or salary plus bonuses (both short and long term) or what. Can’t find any evidence that he’s lost 50% of his significant base salary. (I think that’s outside the Board’s legal power.) Perhaps another measure of a different measure? Any link would be appreciated.
I think he will have significant leagal expenses.
Matters Not, you are causing me some anxiety when you talk about how much Ian’s remuneration package has been cut. We had better organize a ‘whip-round’ straight away.
I saw on the news this evening that he may only receive a paltry $5 million instead of the usual $12 million or so. I hope that we do not see him having to scrounge through the rubbish bins in his local shopping center looking for something to eat!
Karma.
Narev’s meanness in dealing with Combank victims has likely cost him several million dollars in salaries as his gutless Board cuts him free.
LNP/Labor don’t really care about illegal funds, if they did they would have enacted the 2nd Tranche of Anti Money Laundering legislation a decade ago.
All the reasons etc quoted by Binoy would indicate to me–& I hope this inept bloody Federal Govt as well!–that we are overdue for a Royal Commission into the entire Banking system. But will we get one, probably NO, because our “excellent” (NOT!!) Liberal Party will not want to upset any of their obscenely wealthy banking mates. Bastards, the lot of them!
etnorb, I understand your anger and your call for a Royal Commission into the entire Banking sector. My take on this is that a Royal Commission would only amount to ‘tinkering around the edges’ of this problem. We not only have serious problems in the finance sector but in many other industries as well, including the electricity, water, telecommunications, health and education sectors, just to name a few.
In order to seriously address these issues we need a political party with a serious and well thought through socialist platform. Essential industries should be nationalized and run as public services.