ASIC Commences Proceedings Against ISX and JK, page-631

Sorry, none of us can speak for ASIC so that's out. If ASIC are suggesting fraud or lying, they have to expressly plead it and they haven't and there's a clear reason they haven't that's legally well-enshrined. Here's a little chestnut from a High Court decision of Neat Holdings from 30 odd years ago spelling it out:

The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities. That remains so even where the matter to be proved involves criminal conduct or fraud. On the other hand, the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact or facts on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove. Thus, authoritative statements have often been made to the effect that clear or cogent or strict proof is necessary "where so serious a matter as fraud is to be found". Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. Rather, they should be understood as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct. (Citations omitted, my emphasis).

Cheers