Forensic Accounting: Issues with Clayton Utz Report on AMP (TACC609)

This report critically analyzes the issues surrounding the Clayton Utz report to ASIC on the AMP financial misconduct case. The central problem identified is the lack of independence of the report, given Clayton Utz's prior relationship with AMP. The report examines the context of the Royal Commission's findings on AMP's illegal deduction of fees for no service, and how ASIC investigated this conduct. The report highlights the exchange of emails between Clayton Utz and AMP, and the fact that Clayton Utz was a member of AMP's external legal panel, casting doubt on the independence of the report. It further discusses the legal professional privilege issues related to the production of documents, as ASIC sought documents related to interviews with AMP staff. The report concludes that the Clayton Utz report cannot be considered independent and examines the implications of these issues within the context of forensic accounting principles.

Forensic accounting

Royal Commission of Australia has heard that AMP has been illegally deducting fees for service
from the accounts of its customers, by which it mislead the corporate regulator. The Australian
securities investment commission has examined the conduct of AMP in connection with the fee
for no service, as evidence is raised by the Royal Commission (Hargovan, 2018).
AMP had appointed Clayton Utz for the investigation into the issue related to charging a fee
from the accounts of the customer even if no service provided by the company. After this, AMP
produces the report made by Clayton Utz to the Australian Securities and Investment
Commission as an independent report, which modulated the skill and obligation of a senior
executive of the AMP in the misconduct. Further, independence of the Clayton Utz came under
significant scrutiny in the Royal Commission (Le Mire, 2018). It has been revealed that several
emails were exchanged between the Clayton Utz and AMP. Moreover, ASIC determined that
Clayton Utz was a member of external legal penal of the AMP and was performing its services
for AMP in relation to the investigation of the fee for no service. Despite these facts, AMP and
Clayton Utz did not change their assertion and contended that report was prepared
independently, stating that the following “uncompromisingly direct 87-page review” of AMP’s
fee imposed due to no services practice.
After some time, Australian securities and investment commission has issued statement
certifying that it will continue to examine the matter related with the AMP in connection with the
fee for no service scandal and connected misleading and false statement produced to ASIC
(Michael West, 2018). The Australian securities and investment commission, is searching for the
documents of interviews held with staff of the AMP in connection to an independent report of
Clayton Utz into the fee for no service account. ASIC made the appeal to the federal court

regarding ruling that cited documents do not fall in the scope of legal professional privilege
because same was part of the investigation into the fee for the purpose of no service scandal.
Section 33 of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act is related to the
production of documents. On the basis of this section, Australia Securities and Investment
Commission issued a notice to the AMP for production of the certain documents (Michael West,
2018). The commission argues that documents were either waived by the AMP or not enclosed
by the legal professional privilege because information or the documents are connected with the
investigation into claimed as improper. Thus such a lawful privilege do not apply in the cited
case (Smith, 2018).
As a result, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission has applied to the federal court
for an instruction fascinating the production of the documents. Particularly, the commission is
searching three foremost order from the federal court, which is stated as below –
 A statement that documents are not subject to legal professional privilege, or a substitute,
that such privilege has been relinquished by the AMP.
 An order that requires the production of documents by Clayton Utz.
 Subsidiary order.
Therefore by considering the above aspects, in this case, major issue was that report produced by
Clayton Utz cannot be considered as independent. The justification of the same was that cited
report was “uncompromisingly direct” for resolving the dispute in the considered case.

REFERENCES
Hargovan, A. (2018). Governance in practice: Hayne royal commission interim report:
Unclogging the central artery. Governance Directions, 70(11), 691.
Le Mire, S. (2018). Lawyer independence under the spotlight in Australia. Legal Ethics, 21(1),
93-95.
Michael West, (2018). Spectre of foreign regulatory action as AMP crimes worse than Rio Tinto,
Retrieved From<https://www.michaelwest.com.au/spectre-of-foreign-regulatory-action-as-
amp-crimes-worse-than-rio-tinto/>
Smith, M. (2018). The ongoing conflict. Professional Planner, (114), 14.