Australia | 11:23 AM
ASIC is modernising financial reporting rules through Regulatory Guide 43 updates while pursuing $2.2m in penalties against large unlisted companies for late financial report lodgments, signaling reliable disclosure as a 2026 enforcement pillar.
- ASIC seeking feedback on remaking financial reporting relief instruments
- $2.2m in infringement notices issued to 12 large unlisted companies for late lodgments
- Updates respond to the growing economic significance of unlisted asset pools
- Liquidator suspended for 5 years for drawing unauthorized remuneration
- ASIC shuts down approximately 130 investment scams weekly
By Valery Prihartono
This story features regulatory enforcement affecting unlisted companies, audit relief requirements, liquidators, and AI-driven investment scams.
The Unlisted Reporting Gap Closes
ASIC is modernising rules governing how Australian companies report financial health through proposed updates to Regulatory Guide 43 (RG 43) regarding financial reporting and audit relief.
The timing reflects strategic priority: as unlisted asset pools grow –particularly private credit funds and superannuation vehicles holding illiquid investments– the regulator is eliminating opacity that poses systemic risk to the broader financial system.
ASIC Chair Joe Longo has emphasised that “reliable financial information remains more important than ever” as the traditional separation between public and private markets breaks down.
When large unlisted entities fail to meet reporting obligations, the consequences cascade through capital markets via hidden exposures and sudden value destruction.
The Enforcement Reality
The regulatory focus isn’t merely aspirational. ASIC recently issued $2.2m in infringement notices to 12 large proprietary (unlisted) companies for failing to lodge audited financial reports on time.
This enforcement demonstrates the regulator won’t tolerate reporting delays from economically significant unlisted entities; many of which match or exceed ASX-listed companies in revenue, assets, and employee count but face less stringent disclosure requirements.
The penalty amount, while material, represents only the immediate consequence. Companies missing reporting deadlines face:
- Direct financial penalties ($2.2m across 12 companies, averaging $183k each)
- Elevated regulatory scrutiny and potential follow-up investigations
- Reputational damage affecting commercial relationships and credit access
- Potential director disqualification if failures indicate systemic governance deficiency
RG 43 Updates: Simplification Meets Accountability
The proposed Regulatory Guide 43 updates serve dual purposes: simplifying the audit relief process while simultaneously increasing accountability for meeting core reporting obligations.
Streamlining Legitimate Relief
For companies genuinely qualifying for audit relief –typically smaller proprietary companies meeting specific criteria– the updated guidance aims to:
- Clarify eligibility requirements, reducing inadvertent non-compliance
- Simplify application processes, reducing administrative burden
- Align relief provisions with recent legal reforms
- Consolidate fragmented guidance into a coherent framework
This simplification removes excuses for non-compliance. Companies cannot claim confusion about requirements when guidance is clear and accessible.
Eliminating Opacity Hiding Places
Simultaneously, the updates tighten requirements for large proprietary companies; those with significant revenue, assets, or employee counts, making them economically material despite unlisted status.
These entities face heightened expectations around:
- Timely lodgment of financial reports when required
- Audit quality meeting standards comparable to those of listed companies
- Disclosure completeness preventing material omissions
- Control systems ensuring reporting deadlines are met
Investment Implications
For investors in listed companies, unlisted entity reporting quality matters because:
Subsidiary Exposure: Many ASX-listed companies own unlisted subsidiaries or hold investments in unlisted entities. When those entities fail to meet reporting obligations, it signals potential governance deficiencies that could affect the listed parent.
Counterparty Risk: Listed companies transact with unlisted suppliers, customers, and partners. Late financial reporting from material counterparties creates uncertainty about their financial stability and ongoing viability.
Sector Contagion: Reporting failures in unlisted entities often presage broader sector issues. When multiple companies in an industry miss reporting deadlines, it may indicate systemic problems affecting both listed and unlisted participants.
Private Market Exposure: Superannuation funds, private credit providers, and other institutional investors increasingly allocate to unlisted assets. Reliable reporting from those unlisted holdings is essential for accurate fund valuations and investor protection.
Investors should monitor unlisted entity enforcement as a leading indicator of governance quality in sectors with significant unlisted participation.
Liquidator Accountability: The Auricht Suspension
The Administrative Review Tribunal has substituted a registration cancellation with a five-year suspension for liquidator Richard Ernest Auricht for drawing remuneration without creditor or court approval and failing to lodge required documents with ASIC.
While involving an unlisted individual rather than a company, this case reinforces high conduct standards expected of professionals managing corporate collapses.
The Unauthorized Remuneration Issue
Liquidators must obtain creditor or court approval before drawing fees from insolvent estates. This requirement protects creditors from excessive or unjustified fees that deplete available assets.
Auricht’s unauthorised remuneration drawing represents a fundamental breach of trust. Creditors in insolvencies he managed received lower recoveries because fees were taken without proper authorisation.
The five-year suspension –replacing what would have been permanent registration cancellation– still effectively ends Auricht’s liquidation practice for the suspension period.
The ART’s decision to impose suspension rather than cancellation likely reflects some mitigating factors, but the duration (maximum allowed) indicates serious misconduct.
Broader Implications
While liquidators themselves aren’t publicly traded, their failures affect listed company stakeholders:
Creditor Recovery: When listed companies enter insolvency, liquidator misconduct reduces creditor recoveries, affecting banks, suppliers, and other stakeholders holding listed securities.
Market Confidence: Professional standards in insolvency administration support confidence in corporate governance frameworks. When liquidators breach trust, it undermines broader market integrity.
Director Accountability: Rigorous liquidator oversight creates stronger incentives for directors to avoid insolvency through proper governance, indirectly supporting listed company shareholder protection.
Corporate Conduct Enforcement
Beyond reporting and professional standards, ASIC has secured multiple enforcement outcomes targeting fraudulent conduct and governance failures:
Brendan Gunn: Proceeds of Crime
A former finance director, Brendan Gunn, has pleaded guilty to dealing with over $180,000 reasonably suspected of being proceeds of international scams targeting Australian investors.
The case demonstrates ASIC’s capacity to pursue individuals facilitating scam proceeds even when they may not have been the primary perpetrators. Finance professionals accepting or moving suspect funds face criminal prosecution regardless of direct involvement in the initial fraud.
For listed financial services companies, this reinforces expectations around:
- Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures prevent proceeds of crime from entering the financial system
- Transaction monitoring, identifying suspicious patterns
- Reporting obligations when transactions appear linked to scams or fraud
- Employee training, recognizing and escalating red flags
Agriculture Business Disqualifications
Directors behind a group of collapsed agriculture businesses linked to a NSW corruption scandal have been disqualified from managing corporations for 5 years; the maximum period ASIC can impose administratively.
The link to the corruption scandal elevates this beyond a simple business failure to a governance breakdown involving potential misconduct. The maximum 5-year disqualification reflects the seriousness of the conduct and the need to protect future stakeholders from these individuals’ continued corporate involvement.
Agricultural sector collapses often carry broader economic consequences given sector’s interconnection with rural communities, commodity markets, and supply chains. Director disqualifications send clear signals that governance failures causing agricultural business collapses will face maximum consequences.
BDO Audit Litigation Continues
ASIC’s civil penalty proceedings against BDO Audit (WA) regarding allegedly false or misleading audit reports for ASX-listed Dubber Corporation ((DUB)) between FY20 and FY22 continue through court processes.
The case centers on BDO’s alleged failure to identify inconsistencies regarding $26.6m in funds purportedly held in trust. When auditors fail to detect or report material misstatements of this magnitude, the consequences cascade through capital markets as investors make decisions based on unreliable financial information.
Ongoing Implications
This litigation remains important for multiple stakeholder groups:
Dubber Shareholders: The $26.6m represents direct value destruction if funds don’t exist or were misappropriated. Audit failures delayed the discovery of problems, extending the period during which investors traded on unreliable information.
Audit Industry: The case outcome will influence standards of care expected from auditors examining trust accounts and cash holdings. If ASIC succeeds, it establishes precedent for liability when auditors miss material cash discrepancies.
ASX-Listed Companies: The litigation reinforces that audit quality matters beyond compliance formality. Companies selecting auditors based primarily on cost rather than competence and independence create risks ultimately borne by shareholders.
Investors should monitor this litigation for implications regarding audit industry accountability and standards of care in examining financial statement fundamentals like cash balances.
AI-Driven Investment Scams Surge
ASIC has identified “Advanced technology harming consumers” as a top-tier risk for 2026, with scammers increasingly using agentic AI –tools capable of independently planning and executing actions– to create sophisticated investment fraud.
The Agentic AI Threat
Traditional investment scams relied on human operators creating fake websites and manually communicating with victims. Agentic AI dramatically scales and enhances this threat:
Automated Legitimacy: AI systems can create professional-looking investment portals, complete documents, and maintain consistency across materials without human effort.
Behavioural Exploitation: AI analyzes victim responses and adapts messaging to exploit identified behavioral biases and psychological vulnerabilities.
Scale Multiplication: What required teams of human scammers can now be executed by single operators using AI tools to manage thousands of simultaneous victim interactions.
Urgency Creation: AI systems create artificial urgency through “limited time offers” and “exclusive opportunities” designed to bypass critical thinking and due diligence.
Defensive Measures for Investors
ASIC provides a clear framework for protecting against AI-enhanced scams:
Verify Licensing: Always verify entities offering financial products hold valid Australian Financial Services (AFS) licenses via ASIC’s professional registers. This verification takes minutes and eliminates unlicensed operators.
Resist Urgency: Legitimate investment opportunities don’t require immediate decisions. Any pressure to invest quickly without time for proper due diligence indicates a probable scam.
Independent Research: Verify all investment claims through independent sources beyond materials provided by the promoter. AI-generated materials will appear internally consistent but won’t match verified external sources.
Professional Advice: Consult licensed financial advisors before significant investment decisions, especially in unfamiliar products or platforms.
The Enforcement Response
ASIC reports shutting down approximately 130 investment scams weekly, with over 10,000 removed in the last year. This high volume demonstrates both the scale of the scam threat and regulatory commitment to disruption.
However, the 130-per-week shutdown rate also indicates scams are being created faster than they can be eliminated. The low barriers to creating new scam sites mean defensive investor behavior matters as much as regulatory enforcement.
The AI-driven scam evolution means investors can no longer rely solely on obvious red flags like poor grammar or unprofessional presentation. AI-generated scams can appear highly professional while remaining entirely fraudulent.
Investment Strategy: Navigating the Transparency Push
The financial reporting updates, liquidator accountability, corporate conduct enforcement, and scam warnings collectively illustrate ASIC’s commitment to transparency and reliable information across the financial ecosystem.
For Listed Company Investors
Monitor unlisted entity enforcement as a leading indicator:
Sector-Wide Issues: When multiple unlisted companies in a sector miss reporting deadlines, investigate whether listed sector participants face similar pressures or governance challenges.
Subsidiary Quality: Listed companies with multiple unlisted subsidiaries should face scrutiny around consolidated reporting quality and subsidiary governance oversight.
Audit Quality Signals: The BDO litigation reinforces the importance of audit quality. Companies changing auditors frequently or selecting based primarily on cost rather than competence create elevated risk.
For Superannuation and Fund Investors
The unlisted asset reporting focus matters for superannuation, particularly, and managed fund investors:
Valuation Reliability: Funds holding significant unlisted assets depend on reliable financial information from those holdings for accurate valuations.
Governance Quality: Fund managers demonstrating rigorous due diligence on unlisted holdings – including verification of reporting compliance – deserve preference over those treating due diligence as formality.
Transparency Expectations: Funds should clearly disclose unlisted asset holdings, valuation methodologies, and how they verify financial information.
For All Retail Investors
The scam warnings provide an actionable defensive framework:
- Never invest based on urgency or pressure tactics
- Always verify licensing through ASIC registers
- Conduct independent research beyond promoter-provided materials
- Seek professional advice for unfamiliar products or significant amounts
- Recognise that AI makes scams appear more professional without making them legitimate
Looking Ahead: The Transparency Agenda
The Regulatory Guide 43 updates represent part of a broader regulatory focus on transparency and reliable information across both listed and unlisted sectors.
For the remainder of 2026, expect:
Continued Unlisted Enforcement: The $2.2m in penalties represents an opening salvo. Additional enforcement against unlisted companies missing reporting obligations will likely follow.
Audit Quality Scrutiny: The BDO litigation outcome will influence broader expectations for audit quality and standards of care.
Technology-Enhanced Scams: AI-driven scams will continue evolving, requiring ongoing investor education and defensive vigilance.
Reporting Harmonisation: The traditional distinction between listed and unlisted reporting requirements will continue narrowing for economically significant entities.
Conclusion: Information Quality as Foundation
The enforcement activity outlined – from unlisted reporting penalties to liquidator suspensions to AI scam warnings – demonstrates reliable information as foundational to market integrity.
For investors, the strategic implications are:
- Unlisted entity governance affects listed portfolios through subsidiaries, counterparties, and sector contagion
- Professional standards matter from auditors to liquidators to financial advisors
- Technology enhances scam sophistication, requiring heightened defensive vigilance
- Transparency expectations are tightening across both listed and unlisted sectors
The regulatory push toward transparency creates advantages for companies and professionals with robust governance and disclosure practices while elevating risks for those treating compliance as a minimal obligation.
The ASIC Watch series continues monitoring enforcement across reporting requirements, professional accountability, and investor protection to provide early warning signals for portfolio positioning in an evolving regulatory landscape.
Technical limitations
If you are reading this story through a third party distribution channel and you cannot see charts included, we apologise, but technical limitations are to blame.
Find out why FNArena subscribers like the service so much: “Your Feedback (Thank You)” – Warning this story contains unashamedly positive feedback on the service provided.
FNArena is proud about its track record and past achievements: Ten Years On