ISX Financial at AAT

How is this AAT hand out decision shooting down the corrupted ASIC
But how desperate are asic trying for both civil and criminal. Really worried as can see whats coming to them lol
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has lost its bid to pursue a disciplinary case against former Grant Thornton director Bradley Taylor over his 2018 audit of fintech firm iSignThis while criminal proceedings are ongoing.In a judgment handed down in December, Full Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer and Justices Michael O'Byran and Wendy Abraham dismissed ASIC's appeal of a decision that stayed the regulator's case against Taylor.The appeals court said it was "uncontroversial" that civil proceedings could prejudice a concurrent criminal case."That such prejudice may require a stay of the civil proceeding is hardly novel," the judges said.Taylor and Grant Thornton were each charged in the Melbourne Magistrates Court with five counts of failing to conduct the audit in accordance with auditing standards.Taylor could face over $50,000 in fines for the alleged contraventions, which carry a maximum penalty of $10,500 for individual auditors. Grant Thornton risks fines of over $262,000 in relation to the five charges, which carry a $452,500 maximum penalty for companies.Grant Thornton was appointed to conduct iSignthis 2018 audit. ASIC alleges Taylor, a director of the auditing firm at the time, was also responsible for the audit.In civil penalty proceedings that went to trial before Justice Timothy MeEvoy in June, ASIC claims iSignthis failed to disclose to the ASX that in the quarter ending June 30, 2018, it recognised about $3 million in one-off and non-recurring revenue for integration and set-up services for three customers, and about $2.85 million in one-off costs for outsourcing services.The company had entered into agreements providing integration and set-up services for trading platforms Corp Destination Pty Ltd, Fcorp Services Ltd and IMMO Service Group s.r.o..In its defence, iSignthis denied that it was required to report on-off revenue and costs and said that it had given ASIC a breakdown of its revenue for the period.Judgment in the case is reserved.Taylor argued a stay should be granted of the disciplinary proceeding because he was facing criminal charges by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions over the same subject matter.He raised concerns that if he defended the disciplinary proceeding, it could aid the CDPP's case against him..Taylor argued a stay should be granted of the disciplinary proceeding because he was facing criminal charges by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions over the same subject matter.He raised concerns that if he defended the disciplinary proceeding, it could aid the CDPP's case against him. The criminal case concerns the same audit of iSignthis and followed a referral by ASIC.ASIC argued that under the Corporations Act the disciplinary board had to disregard the existence of concurrent criminal proceedings in exercising its powers.But the appeals court said ASIC's interpretation "could not be accepted" because Taylor's actions in defending the disciplinary proceeding could "reveal" his defence.Taylor had also offered an undertaking not to work as an auditor until the end of the disciplinary proceeding, which the judges said was "plainly a relevant consideration"."It is difficult to understand the prejudice said to impact the disciplinary proceeding by delay for resolution of the criminal proceeding, in the circumstances of this case," Full Court said.Third criminal
On the same day as this happened >>>>>
https://online.aat.gov.au/eCaseSearch/Home/Details?fileno=2023%2F9866