The corporate regulator has finally taken criminal action against former Commonwealth Bank of Australia financial planner Ricky Gillespie but some of his customers are still waiting for compensation from the bank.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Leonie and Peter Crowe are victims of Gillespie. They had their signatures forged and their life savings decimated due to unsuitable advice. They lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are still waiting for compensation they believe they deserve.
Despite complaining to CBA management numerous times over the years they were simply fobbed off.
Two years ago, the Crowes reached out to CBA whistleblower Jeff Morris and asked him to represent them in their quest for compensation. He says he drew the case to the personal attention of the chief executive Ian Narev in August 2014.
Morris says the first compensation offer as part of the CBA's self administered compensation scheme was less than $394.
Nine-year wait
He now believes the Crowes are close to an "appropriate" settlement. But nine years is a long time to wait for justice.
In a statement on Tuesday, ASIC said Gillespie had been charged with forging 31 documents.
ASIC banned Gillespie for life in 2012 on the grounds he had forged clients' signatures, engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct and had overcharged clients.
Gillespie then lodged an application to appeal the lifetime ban but withdrew his application a few days before he was due to appear in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane.
At the time I reported that ASIC had lined up four of Gillespie's victims to give evidence, along with a handwriting expert.
ASIC obviously changed its mind as now Gillespie is being prosecuted by the DPP in a case that should prove interesting as ASIC alleges that the purpose of the forgeries was to meet the requirements of CBA's internal audit process, which could shed light on some of the bank's processes.
Gillespie was one of a number of CBA planners banned by the regulator for misconduct. He and other planners, including "dodgy" Don Nguyen, hit the headlines in June 2013 when Fairfax Media launched a series of stories into a scandal and cover-up at CBA's financial planning arm and the failure of ASIC to act promptly.
It resulted in a Senate inquiry that recommended a royal commission into the bank. (The Coalition rejected the proposal and has since been trying to paper over the cracks in the financial services system.)
What later became evident was that CBA had become aware of the forgery allegations at least nine months before he was allowed to resign from the bank. It would take the regulator another four years to ban him.
Gillespie left CBA in June 2009 citing personal reasons. This allowed him to go and work for two other financial planning operations before he was finally banned in November 2012.
Signature problems
After the story broke, I was sent a CBA compliance report on Gillespie dated October 16, 2008, that advised "issues of suspected irregularities" in the signatures of four of Gillespie's clients.
A month later another document revealed another 10 signatures had been identified as possibly fraudulent. In one case, the forged signature was used to obtain a one-off commission and create an on-going fee of 0.83 per cent of the value of an investment portfolio, documents show.
What was particularly chilling was the role of CBA. One document noted that some bank staffers had expressed a "degree of heartburn" over the proposal to spend $6000 to investigate the forgeries using a professional handwriting expert. The comments, made in late 2008, suggested the price was considered too high.
One document from compliance, dated November 20, 2008, says: "It is quite plausible that at least a number of the signatures have been forged, it appears that RG [Ricky Gillespie] has demonstrated that he has a somewhat cavalier attitude to the general obligations under s912A Corporations Act, to ensure financial services are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly. RG appears to fail on all 3 tests."
CBA issued a fresh statement on Tuesday saying it would not tolerate unethical behaviour. It said it is committed to addressing all instances of suspected misconduct or criminal activity.
"Culture and ethics are very important to us and we will continue to ensure our systems, policies and processes support high standards of conduct," it said.
Words are one thing. But the true test of its conviction is how quickly it acts to compensate those victims of CBA employees who fell well short of these "high standards of conduct".
