Macquarie sued for misreporting up to 1.5 billion sales
One of Australia's biggest financial providers is in court again after allegedly failing to report up to 1.5 billion short sales, putting at risk the nation's financial stability.
Corporate watchdog ASIC alleges Macquarie Securities - Macquarie Group's cash brokering division - failed to correctly report at least 73 million short sales between December 2009 and February 2024.
ASIC estimates the true figure is likely to be between 298 million and 1.5 billion short sales, but the inadequacy of the brokering division's reporting systems makes it impossible to narrow down beyond such a large range.
Short sales refer to selling stock or other securities that an entity does not currently own in the hope of buying at a lower price later on - essentially a bet that the product will decline in value.
The method was used by traders to bet against the financial instruments that were causing the housing bubble that sparked the 2008 global financial crisis, as popularised in the Hollywood film The Big Short.
Reports of short selling can be used by regulators to identify potential market risks before they occur.
It assists in detecting market misconduct and supports market integrity, ASIC chair Joe Longo said.
"This action is timely given significant recent global market volatility. Accurate and reliable data underpins the integrity of, and confidence in, Australia's financial markets," Mr Longo said on Wednesday.
"Investors expect reliable information to analyse market movements and inform their investment decisions."
The legal action in the NSW Supreme Court marks the fourth time ASIC has taken regulatory action against Macquarie Group in just over 12 months.
Earlier in May, ASIC imposed licence conditions on Macquarie Bank for misreporting hundreds of thousands of over-the-counter derivatives trades as well as failing to prevent and detect suspicious trading activity in its futures dealing business.
ASIC is seeking penalties from Macquarie Securities (MSAL) as well as an independent review of its reporting systems to ensure they comply with the law.
Macquarie said the group's brokering division first identified issues with its reporting of short sales and self-reported this to ASIC in late 2022.
"The reporting issues identified in the proceedings have been remediated with additional controls implemented," Macquarie said in a statement.
"MSAL is now reviewing ASIC's claim.
"Macquarie takes its compliance obligations very seriously and continues to invest in programs to further improve systems and controls across the Group."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 days ago
- ABC News
Collapsed international student agency GrowPro Experience may have traded while insolvent
An international student agency that collapsed in late February may have been trading while insolvent for more than a year, the liquidator believes. In a statutory report to creditors, liquidator Joshua Taylor estimated GrowPro Experience Pty Ltd owed more than $2.74 million to creditors, including roughly $450,000 to the Australian Tax Office. His report contained preliminary findings and noted further investigations were required. In the report, Mr Taylor stated he was considering reporting alleged breaches in director duties including allegations of failure to use care and diligence, failure to act in good faith, and insolvent trading, possibly opening directors to being personally pursued for money owed to creditors. "Upon the completion of my investigations into the affairs of the Company, I will lodge my report to the ASIC (Australian Securities and Investments Commission)," the report read. To date liquidators had identified 1,134 student clients owed refunds for education, visa and insurance services that were never delivered, with claims totalling about $870,000. Mr Taylor said many students had not lodged claims, and he estimated a true total of $2.4 million was owed back to these clients. The report, sent to creditors on May 26, stated most students — primarily from South America and Spain — would not be entitled to any refund. GrowPro's record keeping was also questioned in the report. The liquidator's report said the company's total assets were unknown because many schools recorded as owing commission payments challenged them, claiming students had not been enrolled or had withdrawn from the courses. GrowPro had two directors — Spain-based Antonio Llobet, known as Goiko, and Australia-based Paul Mansour. In the liquidator's report, the pair attributed the company's failure to increases in visa application fees, ministerial directions to reduce student numbers, and an uptick in visa refusals. Mr Taylor did not disagree with these being contributing factors, but pointed out GrowPro has made consistent trading losses since 2022. Mr Taylor told the ABC GrowPro paid its sales staff once students committed, and often before visas were approved or enrolment completed, which led to refunds being required if enrolments did not happen. GrowPro was criticised by students for only notifying them of the company's difficulties six weeks after its Spanish parent company had filed for voluntary administration and began insolvency proceedings, and for continuing to take payments after those proceedings had begun. Mr Taylor said Mr Mansour had minimal involvement in running the company, had no access to bank accounts, and only dealt with tax matters, and that Mr Llobet essentially ran the business. Mr Mansour declined to comment, but when the ABC approached him in early-March over the company's collapse he said he said he did not know what funds remained in the company bank accounts, what staff remained, or how many students were affected. Mr Llobet did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) said if a director had allowed insolvent trading a court could hold them responsible for debts incurred from the point of the company going insolvent. "It effectively pierces the corporate vale, and makes them have to pay," she said. Proving insolvent trading in court was a long and costly process, however, and liquidators had to consider whether directors had enough money to justify the action. There were defences in the Corporations Act directors could use to argue against liability for insolvent trading, such as being absent for medical reasons. There was no carve-out that exempted directors because they were not involved in the day-to-day running of the company. Mr Taylor previously told the ABC he was investigating "material amounts" of money transferred abroad to affiliated entities abroad. The new report revealed amounts transferred to related parties more than quadrupled between 2022 and 2024, jumping from just over $1.48 million to more than $7.9 million. The report noted Mr Llobet said all transactions were for "bona fide company expenses such as operational wages," but investigations continued into them. Mr Taylor told the ABC he had not ruled out pursuing either director to recover funds, and both would be asked for personal statements of their financial positions. With Mr Llobet having been more involved with running GrowPro's Australian entities, Mr Taylor said it was likely he would face particular scrutiny. The report read: "Upon completion of further investigations where I determine that there is a recoverable action against the director for insolvent trading or unreasonable director related transactions I shall be requesting the director to provide me with a personal statement of their financial position." The report noted a loan made from Mr Llobet to the company, which if verified may be able to be offset against any claims against him. Mr Taylor had conducted land title searches in New South Wales and found neither director owned property, and he said he was considering expanding his search to other states. Any legal action would likely depend upon funding from creditors.
ABC News
4 days ago
- ABC News
RAMS accused by ASIC of faking payslips and contracts for home loans
Corporate regulator ASIC has sued Westpac home lender RAMS for allegedly engaging in systemic misconduct when arranging home loans, including faking payslips and contracts. Business reporter Daniel Ziffer unpacks the case.
The Age
4 days ago
- The Age
Fake payslips used to get loans approved in ‘systemic misconduct': ASIC
Staff at Westpac's RAMS home loan business submitted fake payslips from employers that did not exist to get mortgage applications over the line, the corporate watchdog says in a new court case alleging 'systemic misconduct' within the lender. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on Wednesday launched legal action against RAMS, a home lending business that Westpac bought in 2007. Westpac closed RAMS to new customers in August last year. The case, which follows investigations by ASIC, alleges RAMS was in breach of the Credit Act by failing to properly supervise representatives of the company, and it says this resulted in 'widespread misconduct' by RAMS franchisees and staff. RAMS admitted it conducted business with unlicensed persons, failed to properly supervise its representatives, and failed to have proper policies and procedures in place. Westpac, which has previously acknowledged misconduct in RAMS, said RAMS was working with ASIC to resolve the proceedings as quickly as possible. Loading A statement of agreed facts submitted by ASIC said Westpac launched a review of the RAMS franchisee network in late 2022, which resulted in Westpac remediating 48 customer loans worth $7.6 million. The statement describes various types of misconduct including a case involving loan applications being supported with 'false payslips from non-existent employers'. The statement also says Westpac's internal investigations had uncovered cases where loans were submitted with the borrowers' expenses altered to allow the loan to pass the bank's credit tests. ASIC also laid out cases where RAMS representatives accepted business referrals from unaccredited 'referrers' – people such as some accountants or lawyers who are authorised to receive a commission in return for referring mortgage customers to a bank.
