opes alleged statement, page-55

Ant,

Why would ANZ have had access to the internal records of Opes - Opes was a client of ANZ, not a department?

In the normal course of events for a bank to review their facilities to a client they can only request certain information they need, and then need to rely upon their own judgement as to the accuracy of same. It follows a client can falsify account records etc.

If the bank is uncomfortable with the information provided (for whatever reason) then the bank can withdraw the facilities. However, than cannot storm into a clients office and demand open access to all financial records.

Equally, a bank cannot simply walk into a clients office and oversee how the company is being run.

I do sense that people are trying to read too much "in between the lines" of the Crawford Report, and hanging on every word Smith has subsequently said. Trying to fit the report outcome to suit their own points of view.

At the end of the day the Crawford Report was an investigation into the internal operational aspects of an ANZ department. Full marks to ANZ for making the report public - did WBC or NAB do the same following their "problems"?

Whether the ANZ report that was publicly released is the full version, or a "sanitised" version for public release I have absolutely no idea.

But it is probably reasonable to assume the report would have been thoroughly scrutinised by their Opes legal advisors to ensure nothing was released to prejudice their legal position.