Short CBA into Austrac response, page-33

If we want to use Tabcorp fine as a precedent, Justice Perram accepted that all 108 breaches can be construed as a single course of conduct:

Accordingly, I conclude that a failure to comply with the AML/CTF Rules will generally have the consequence of causing an infringement of s 81. Contrary to the submissions of the parties, I cannot see how the text of s 81 can be bent so that it can be read as involving only a single infringement when a program is said to be deficient. Intractably, it appears to be contravened each time a reporting entity commences to provide a designated service to a customer whilst its program is not in a proper condition.
This otherwise alarming conclusion may, to an extent, be ameliorated by the course of conduct principle …. Where every infringement of s 81 springs from the same deficiencies in a program there is much to be said for the view that what is involved is a single course of conduct….. I propose for the reasons I have already given, to treat all of them as resulting from a single course of conduct. This does not limit the penalty which may be imposed to $17 million but it informs the decision which must be made.

I take ALL OF THEM to mean a penalty as $15M fine divided by 108 incidents giving about $140,000 per incident as informing the decision.

The same precedence sets CBA's S81 breaches, should they be found guilty at $7.4B. That would sting a bit! OF course it wont be that, but at the same time CBA don't have a strong a case as TABcorp for Course
of Conduct.