Bankruptcy Act/Veronique Ingram ITSA/ complaints

Why are reports of misconduct shelved?

SEP13

Posted by Peter Keenan in ASIC, Australian Senate 2009-2010, Offences, Official Inquiries, Regulation, White collar crime

Statistics produced by Australia’s corporate regulator reveal that it treats only 11% of  the unfavourable  statutory reports it receives from insolvency practitioners  as serious enough to warrant any action.

Insolvency practitioners must lodge a report with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) when they suspect an offence under any Australian law relating to the company to which they are appointed.

In one of ASIC’s submissions to the Senate Committee’s inquiry into liquidators and administrators (see page 76 of the March 2010 submission), there is a chart showing the number of such reports – described as “reports of alleged misconduct or suspicious activity” –  received in the financial  years 2007, 2008 and 2009, and in the 6 months to December 2009.

See the copy of ASIC’s chart at the end of this article.

[All public submissions to the Committee may be found athttp://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/liquidators_09/submissions.htm ]

The chart in ASIC’s first submission reveals that during the period 1/7/2006 to 31/12/2009 ASIC received 20,225 “inital” statutory reports alleging misconduct or suspicious activity.  Of those only 2,918 (14.4%) were flagged or  escalated for further consideration.

In the 06/07 and 07/08 financial years the number of reports escalated equalled 17%.  But in the 08/09 financial year and the half year to December 2009,  that figure dropped to 11%.

Why are 89% of reports by liquidators and administrators not acted upon?  There would be several reasons.  Isn’t the public entitled to know what those reasons are and how many cases there are in each category?

Statistics on complaints of ASIC regarding Insolvency Practicioners

Australian Securities and Investments Commission March 2011

Insolvency practitioners complaints statistics These statistics summarise information provided in ASIC’s public submission to the Insolvency Enquiry and also brings them up to date. ASIC will provide six-monthly updates on these figures. 

Complaints volume trend 2006-07		2007-08		2008-09		2009-10		2010-11 To Dec		Total/ Average %
Total complaints and enquiries finalised	11,455		12,514		14,543		14,002		7,779		60,293
Total insolvency appointments	11,966		12,524		15,567		14,056		7,357		61,470
Total complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners	406		352		633		520		234		2,155
Total complaints and enquiries against insolvency practitioners excluding duplicates	344		317		438		467		218		1,784
% insolvency practitioners complaints and enquiries of total complaints and enquiries	3.5%		2.8%		4.4%		3.7%		3.0%		3.6%
% insolvency practitioner complaints and enquiries of total appointments	3.4%		2.8%		4.1%		3.7%		3.2%		3.5%

Statistics of complaints regarding Practitioners from the Insolvency Trustee service Australia.
( Note these are substantially lower)
This is because Bankruptcy Regulation uses S134 (3) to justify misconduct 

Table 8: All practitioners – complaints While the percentage of justified complaints increased marginally it is pleasing to note that the number of complaints received in 2010–11 decreased. 

2008–09		2009–10		2010–11
Number of complaints received	418		434		401
Percentage of complaints found to be justified	17%		10%		11%
Number of complaints not requiring investigation	189		195		214
Complaints not requiring investigation finalised within 14 days (standard 80%)	100%		97%		92%
Number of complaints investigated	229		239		187
Actual percentage of investigative complaints finalised within 60 days (standard 80%)	85%		86%		87

Of the 401 complaints received in 2010–11, 335 were against registered trustees and the Official Trustee (343 in 2009–10).
These complaints encompassed six main areas: 

..lack of information or responsiveness 29% (25%) ..decisions concerning the claiming or disposal of assets 21% (21%) ..the extent of trustees’ fees and costs 10% (11%) ..delays in the administration or lack of action 15% (9%) ..inappropriate conduct or conflict of interest 9% (11%) ..income and contribution liability assessments 5% (4%) 

Commonwealth Ombudsman's Statistics
2009-2001
2010-2011
Not
investigated Investigated
Agency Received Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat3 Cat 4 Cat 5
ASIC 158 49 69 35 10
2009-2010
ITSA 69 29 22 6 8
2009-20010



ASIC 169 49 83 31 11
2010-2011
ITSA 70 27 17 15 8
2010-2011
Anything higher than a category 4 should be referred to the Minister.
The Ombudsman usually do a deal prior to this with the agency and send you a letter telling you to fuck off as they have solved the problem.



Also note only 20-25per cent of complaints are investigated.
Refer to my blog put up on Saturday night Commonwealth Ombudsman Statistics 2010-2011 for an explanation.

Posted 26th May by bankruptcy coverup by ombudsman

  

0 

Add a comment