twiggy decision - give me a break, page-40

There are many posts on the law and its application, and I have no argument with any of that. We must have the laws and that's good. But in this case, the law has put any innocent person effectively in jail. This is not my opinion, it is an observed fact from someone who was 'there at the time'. And who has an excellent memory.

"Unfortunatley though they are trying to enforce rules from a Company Act that is written in a way that it is full of holes and that it seems to favour the Directors of companies."

If that is the case, why did ASIC formally announce that they would not be pursuing the NAB director who's documented share sale just ahead of a market-sensitive announcement (which dropped the price by $4) clearly broke the disclosure rules? They would have won that one in a heartbeat.

There is always a cost when a legal error is made. In this case, it reflects very badly on ASIC, who's prestige has taken a huge hit. They are now clearly seen to be not impartial.