I understand what you want, and I sympathise with your cause, but I fear you are looking to the wrong people.
The fact is the shares were paid for - paid for by a loan from the company with very generous conditions. Completely legal. You might well say that PB was able to skirt the intent of the law and the whole deal was smelly, if not downright unethical. Maybe so, but it was legal.
What you get from the legal system, including regulatory bodies like ASIC, is the application of the law, not necessarily what you and I might call justice. If perchance the application of the law actually delivers justice (which imo would be an unusual and happy coincidence) then the legislators have done a good job. More often than not though you will get nothing more than the application of the law from the legal system, and certainly not justice. And it has to be that way. As much as we all might at times wish it to be, we can't have individuals (police, judges, vigilantes...) effectively ignoring the law and delivering their own version of justice - history tells us that sort of thing never ends well. So we're stuck with the application of the law (albeit with some interpretation by judges).
If you don't like the fact that PB was legally able to do what he did, don't complain to the regulator - lobby the law makers to change the law. ASIC might have some input to the laws it administers, but those laws are enacted by government, not ASIC.
Expand
