An Enforcement Outcomes report has been issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for the six months from January to June 2013 (Report 360).
It is the fourth of its type since ASIC abandoned its Prosecution Reports. But unlike those reports – upon which I based my paper, “Convictions for summary insolvency offences committed by company directors” , a detailed comparison of prosecution outcomes over the years 2006 to 2010, including the sections of the Corporations Act under which enforcement action was taken and the fines imposed – the new Enforcement Outcomes reports provide far less information.
In the part of the latest Enforcement Outcomes report that mentions summary insolvency offences, the reader is simply told that:
“As part of our liquidator assistance program, 249 directors were successfully prosecuted for summary offences concerning a failure to assist an external administrator.” (paragraph 86)
Similar brief references are made in the three previous reports.
So what, if anything, do these limited figures say?
About all we can do is compare the latest figure with those from the previous 18 month period.
In the six months from July to December 2012 the comparative number of directors successfully prosecuted under the liquidator assistance program was 275. (Report 336, paragraph 91.)
Further comparisons with the two earlier Enforcement Outcomes reports might not be all that meaningful, because those reports give figures on summary “proceedings against” directors rather than the current classification of “successful prosecutions” against directors. That said, the reports for the six months to June 2012 and for the first six months (to December 2011), put the figures at 196 and 208 respectively (see Report 299, paragraph 48 and Report 281, paragraph 39 )
But according to ASIC, readers need to be cautious when making comparisons of such data. The Enforcement Outcomes report 360 states (at paragraph 18):
“Comparisons between individual enforcement reports have some limitations. This is because no two enforcement actions are the same. For example, there may be differences in the complexity or seriousness of the allegations. However, over a two-year period, it is possible to identify the types of conduct or sectors that are the focus of ASIC’s enforcement activity in the longer term.”
This statement – minus the final sentence – was also used in the Media Release that accompanied the report.