COML2005: Corporations Act, ASIC Powers, and Penalties Analysis

This report examines the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) concerning prospectuses and corporate law, referencing the Corporations Act 2001. It addresses a case study involving Peter Grandthorn, a director, and John Doe, an accountant, who engaged in tax evasion. The report outlines the specific provisions of the Corporations Act applicable to both individuals, focusing on director duties, misleading conduct, and disclosure obligations. Furthermore, it details the penalties ASIC could impose on both Grandthorn and Doe, including potential jail terms, financial penalties, and professional sanctions, in light of ASIC's enforcement stance. The analysis highlights the consequences of corporate misconduct and the importance of compliance with the Corporations Act.

Running Head: COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP LAW
1
COML2005 Companies and Partnership Law
Name
Institution
Date

COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP LAW
COML2005 Companies and Partnership Law
Powers ASIC could use in relation to prospectuses
There are a number of power sets that ASIC could use in relation to prospectuses. One
of the most significant parties that govern the legislation administration of the body is the
Corporation’s act of 2001. Another power that ASIC could use in relation to the
implementation of its prospectuses is the superannuation industry and the life insurance act.
This is because the ASIC has very many powers vested in it (Tarasiuk & Gorniak, 2017). One
of its powers is to institute criminal or civil proceedings, and to investigate breaches under
the different acts described above. These powers include ASIC actions against companies,
directors, and other persons within companies that could be implicated. This powers are
exercised in cases such as insolvent trading, misappropriation, and breach of duties.
Besides, these powers are crucial to the ASIC body since they enable it to obtain
information that is needed to make enforcement and regulatory decisions. In addition these
powers are important as they enable the ASIC to obtain evidence in forms that are crucial and
those that could be used in court proceedings (Price, 2017). The powers also ensure that
directors of companies are away of how they should provide information and documents to
the ASIC. The powers also ensure that witnesses are protected under the ASIC.
QUESTION 2
Provisions of the Corporations Act apply to Peter Grandthorn.
In Australia, the corporations act is the primary legislation that regulates the country’s
companies. This is because it has provisions that regulates companies’ crucial matters such as
operation or even formation. In addition to this, the corporation’s framework also covers a
variety of many different financial services and provisions. There are a number of provisions
of the corporation’s act that apply to peter Grandthorn as the director of the company. The
first provision that applies to him is that that outlines the duties of a director. Under this

COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP LAW
provision, all the duties and responsibilities of a director (Langford & Ramsay, 2018). In
addition, another provision of the corporation’s act that applies to Peter is that which outlines
the various misleading conducts and obligation breaches.
Provisions which apply to John Doe
The provision of the corporations’ act that applies to john is that of breach of
disclosure of obligation. In this case, action should be taken against John for breaching his
obligations as an accountant. The action that john took was against the listing rule 3.1
resulting to the contravention of obligations (Langford & Ramsay, 2018). Another provision
applying to John Doe is that of deceptive and misleading conduct. By creating two different
books for the company in order to avoid paying taxes john will have contravened section
1041H of the corporations’ act. Failure to notify the relevant organizations and officers is yet
another mistake that John committed under the provision.
Penalties ASIC could apply to Peter Grandthorn
Prior to reforms being made in the ASIC, there were no effective remedies and
penalties to misconducts in corporations. However, after the reforms, tax evasion, breaches of
duty as well as defective disclosure among other forms of issues count as misconducts that
require the application of civil penalties (Stannard, 2017). In this case, as per reforms made
in ASIC, a company’s director is liable for all sorts of breaches administered by agencies and
individuals under them (Ramsay & Webster, 2017). Under the director penalty regime
therefore, Peter will be held liable for tax evasion in his company. Some of the penalties that
could be applied to him include prohibition to manage companies, he could be held
personally liable for the tax evasion and tax debt hence having to pay the taxes, he could be
asked to pay a total amount of $200,000 to Commonwealth, he could be charged in a court of
law and fined or serve a specified jail term.
Penalties ASIC could apply to John Doe

COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP LAW
As the accountant of the company, John Doe is responsible for carrying out legitimate
book keeping, tax obligations, and any other accounting duties within the company. In this
case, he is liable for the mistakes that take place in the accounting and financial department
of the company. Creating two sets of books for the company in order to avoid a large tax
obligation is an offense and is a form of aiding tax evasion (Stannard, 2017). Consequently,
ASIC will apply a number of penalties to John. In this case, John will be arraigned in court
whereby when prove guilty, he could be serve a jail term of a maximum of 15 years, or be
fined. Besides, john’s accounting licence could be revoked denying him the chance to work
as an accountant in any other company. He could also have to pay a total sum of $200,000 to
Commonwealth.

COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP LAW
References
Gilligan, G., Godwin, A., Hedges, J., & Ramsay, I. (2017). Penalties regimes to counter
corporate and financial wrongdoing in Australia–views of governance
professionals. Law and Financial Markets Review, 11(1), 4-12.
Langford, R. T., & Ramsay, I. (2018). Does Section 191 of the Corporations Act Include
Conflicting Duties?. Company and Securities Law Journal, 36(7), 587-592.
Price, J. (2017). The regulatory perspective: When will ASIC come knocking?. Governance
Directions, 69(4), 200.
Ramsay, I., & Webster, M. (2017). ASIC enforcement outcomes: trends and
analysis. Company and Securities Law Journal, 35(5), 289-321.
Stannard, J. (2017). ASIC update: Fee and cost disclosure, whistleblowers, penalties and a
fintech regulatory sandbox. Superfunds Magazine, (430), 10.
Tarasiuk, T., & Gorniak, M. (2017). Simple method of fundamental reactive power
measurement for ASIC application. IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, 11(9), 2393-2402.