CWN and WBC didn’t deal in those activities, so get that false perception out of your mind. They merely let all the money flowed freely without verifying where they had been coming from. The way their businesses were, they had the moral responsibility to check. The royal commission was also deeply political in nature. The bank one was to reel all the banks in to stop lending and build their reserves, while the crown one was to stop money flowing from the CCP to the Australian government. The government couldn’t care less about money laundering if it has net benefit for Australia.
As for the story and narrative around this and that came and found no issues, they are irrelevant, and frankly, quite stupid. The scope of the investigation by the independent experts, for example, was extremely limited and set by you. This meant that they could only look at things given by you. It rendered the whole investigation a farce. The only I got from it was the fact that ISX had not signed any significant contract since the four contracts. Grant Thornton also got removed as auditor. Regardless, none of them can be used as evidence in court for anything.
When it comes to the case, when did the suspension become unfair? You can’t say since the beginning, so what can you say? You can’t prove that anything in the statement of reasons is false either. So that goes that case. When it comes to ASIC’s case, all it has to do is subpoena the transaction between ISX and the customers. As per my understanding of the relevant section in the statement of reasons, virtually all the revenue came from unknown sources.
