Economic risk | Regulatory & Investigations
Practical pitfalls for FAR implementations – Seven deadly sins (Part 3/3)
Click each term for related articles
The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) is arguably the most significant change to Australia’s financial services regulatory landscape in a generation.
It requires banks who already have the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR), insurers, and superannuation funds to identify directors and senior executives, detail their specific responsibilities in ‘accountability statements’, and conduct their activities in accordance with broader obligations (e.g. ‘integrity’, ‘skill’ and ‘co-operation’) with ASIC and APRA. There are significant sanctions for both institutions and individuals under FAR, including disqualification.
The FAR is a regulatory hydra. It is easy to understand in theory, but difficult to implement in practice – new heads keep emerging! Remuneration under CPS 511, outsourcing under CPS 234, steps to mitigate against cyber-attacks, Design & Distribution Obligations – FAR touches them all, and imposes personal liability for failing to take ‘reasonable steps’ to get them right.
Our expertise is specific, nuanced, and timely.
We are not learning on the job. Having worked on over 20 executive accountability regime implementation projects in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Australia, we have developed a detailed understanding of the FAR regime that leverages our extensive prior experience.
A particular area of expertise is assisting clients with complex cross-jurisdictional groups understand how the new legislation will impact operational structures (including in relation to competing threshold requirements applicable to branches and subsidiaries) and reporting lines both within and outside of Australia.
The team is happy to offer presentations and free initial consultations to you on how FAR may impact your executives and directors. Get in touch with our key team members below or reach us via our dedicated FAR email group!
Partner
Partner