As usual
@itzgr82balive you apply great sense, reasoning and logic.
I have to admit the Ann. has rattled my conviction somewhat as I try to suspend previously held belief in order to determine whether new information provides adequate evidence on which to establish a new belief or to find confirmation of the previous status.
I recognise my limitations in analysis, business protocols, ASX LRs and ASIC regs and so rely heavily on your and others discussion.
Your post has reminded me, as has done
@ChillingOut's post, of the perspectives that I lack. However, as is often the case, I continue to hold a few reservations.
- the selection of 7 out of 200 documents may simply be a matter of prioritisation using only the 7 as these most pertinently demonstrate ISX failings.
- I recognise that ISX has taken a more aggressive and dismissive response to ASX query letters and consider this to be unprofessional and emotive and refusing to answer questions calmly and authoritatively. I have to consider that ISX responses may not be a reliable guide to the actual facts of the matter due to such a heated nature. Moreover it seems to have cause ASX Sept Query to become increasingly heated. Therefore neither seem to me to serve a meaningful purpose.
- on the matter of AUSTRAC, it would seem essential that AUSTRAC would engage in an investigation following the Visa allegations. Do we have any indication that AUSTRAC are not investigating? Also is it possible the AUSTRAC are now working with ASIC and ASX to investigate in a more complete and wholistic manner? Alternatively could AUSTRAC defer investigation pending the outcome of AASX investigations?
- the EU DGC and possibly ACCC investigations into Visa may indeed show an ulterior motive for Visa to falsely allege breaches of AML program efficacy. Do you think there is a possibility of this to be the case? Otherwise the Visa allegations may indicate that ISX programs are not up to the standard that ISX claims.
These questions arise from the current announcement and add to past concerns and questions that have arisen from previous Ann.s and HC discussions. My own thinking is cautious and I hold no opinion on these - hence I hope you, and perhaps others, can answer these.
many thanks and respects for your judgement, Scott.
