The harm done to even one child is not and should not be a bearable cost. My point above was it was not only the monetary cost and I quote “and the actual harm caused to people eg those children who were abused”, I also made the point about terrorism support. There is also the support it gave to criminals (whether organised or not). If the headlines create an action that makes a Business or Govt behave in a more moral fashion, that at least holds enough portion of the truth to not be liable then I think it has achieved some positive benefit. If you think my post was purely about Child Exploitation or to garner more “impact” then perhaps I had not phrased it well enough to make myself clearly understood (this happens often enough) and so I apologise for not being that clear. Hopefully my edit has made it clearer to readers.
As for AUSTRAC they failed to take strong remedial action until much later into the process, they did get reports that while they might have been late allowed them to see that CBA at least, was allowing traffic of money that was highly suspect. They warned the Bank then what…some period after they take Court action, where was the oversight to ensure the Bank adhered to the warning before that Court proceeding, where was the audit? I don’t excuse the Bank/s whatsoever and as I said they are “big adults” but that still meant that AUSTRAC, ASIC and APRA at least did not carry out their due diligence to ensure that the Financial Institutions really altered their behaviours or adhered to the rules. It was a dual or multi player failure to be responsible organisations by them all.
It was revealed in the RC (the one we were told wasn’t needed) that much of this oversight and response to oversight was a mates club…
The 2017 Court Action came after
“Austrac alleges CBA was too slow to report 53,506 transactions of more than $10,000, the threshold at which banks must report cash transactions to authorities within 10 business days, and did not carry out an anti-money-laundering risk assessment before rolling out the ATMs in 2012”
The money was already gone by 10 business days and a report could have been 14 days “real days” old even by that allowed limit and they don’t say how late late may have been for most eg a few days late, and they knew this problem existed with the ATMs since 2012 ie 5 years before Court action. I say a fail by AUSTRAC to properly control their patch.
10 business days is such a long time in Internet time, Funds transfers and so on. Even if they had reported the transactions on the last possible legal day what use is that beyond a meander down “what coulda been” street.