Argument to support that ISX SHOULD have corrupt customers.

The following is a fact-based logical philosophical argument for the question:

1. Should ISX accept or keep as a customer, a company that is licensed to do business in at least one part of the world but who is suspected or proven to have corrupt activities either at the time ISX carries out due diligence or after if the customer is still transacting?

Underlying facts:

1. ISX deploys verification methods known as "know your customer "(KYC) strong customer authentification and which now includes "know your customer's customer" (KYCC). This technology looks at records that are transacting through their customers' accounts to determine if any are transactions for money laundering, child pornography, terrorist funding.

2. ISX uses ASIC, APRA, US Securities & Exchange Commission, UK Companies House, Cyprus Registrar of Companies etc. to determine if a company is found to be corrupt, suspected of corruption and/or if they are an appropriately licensed Financial ServicesLicenced holder.

3. ISX is a "REGTECH", but is not a regulator in the same manner as is ASIC and APRA.

4. ISX does not have a trading platform; it interfaces, in order to monitor transactions, with various trading platforms licenced by various other third-party vendors.

There have been an inordinate number of speculative posts and articles that speculate and insinuate that ISX does not have adequate due diligence procedures or is somehow corrupt because they may have some corrupt customers. Even the ASX used three links to ASIC in the latest questions to ISX when they requested that ISX declare what their due diligence was when taking on these customers. These advices may or may not have been there at the ISX did their due diligence. The ASX links were:

1. https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/scams/companies-you-should-not-deal-with/unlicensed-companies-list/f/fcorp-services-ltd where it states: "ASIC advises this company could be involved in a scam. Do not deal with this business as it is unlicensed in Australia.”

2. https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/scams/companies-you-should-not-deal-with/unlicensed-companies-list/n/nona-marketing-ltd where it states: "ASIC advises this company could be involved in a scam. Do not deal with this business as it is unlicensed in Australia.”

3. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/conmen-have-swindled-tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-from-victims-in-phone-scam/news-story/ffa893bf5acb96245647d9fc773de12f “Conmen swindle $300,000 from Melbourne victims in phone scam.

I argue that for as long as a company is transacting from anywhere in the world, corrupt or not, their transactions should be monitored for money laundering, funding of child pornography, and terrorism funding for these reasons:

· If a company has a license to operate in any one part of the world but not in Australia, their transactions can make it into Australia for as long as the company has a license to operate. Allowing them to transact without any monitoring of transactions is dangerous.

· If a company is corrupt, it is even more important for its transactions to be monitored.

· If a company has been found to have had corrupt activities (example, NAB, CBA…) but are trying to put processes in place to make sure these transactions are detected in the future, ISX is the perfect company to do that monitoring in the future

· It is dangerous to penalize a company like ISX for providing surveillance services to detect corruption in transactions of a customer that is corrupt. Is so, why would any company provide this very necessary service?

· It is also dangerous to penalize ISX because they lose revenue once their customer has been found to be corrupt. If so, why would any company provide this very necessary service?

· A corrupt company should not provide the surveillance of their own transactions – i.e. NAB and CBA. How did that work out? We must have companies such as ISX, an external third-party provide this service.

If these arguments are not true, how then exactly will transactions such as NAB’s be monitored?

If these arguments are not true, will the ASX’s own blockchain processes be allowed to do this monitoring without considering the ASX as corrupt?