Commonwealth Bank controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile7 entries
2020
ASIC starts proceedings over alleged conflicted remuneration
Lawsuit filed
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission started civil penalty proceedings against Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Colonial First State Investments Limited. ASIC alleges that CFSIL paid CBA more than A$22 million in conflicted remuneration in connection with the distribution of Essential Super. The allegations are presented as claims by the regulator, not as a court determination.
Stated objective. To gain access to documents detailing the bank's decision to finance oil and gas projects.
Source excerpt
Asic alleges that more than A$22m (£12.2m,$15.2m, €13.5m) in conflicted remuneration was paid by CFSIL to CBA for the distribution of Essential Super, a superannuation product issued by CFSIL.
Criminal charges have today been filed against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) in the Federal Court for the mis-selling of consumer credit insurance.
The 30 criminal charges relate to CBA's promotion and sale of CreditCard Plus and Loan Protection policies as an add-on insurance product in branches, by telephone and online. The charges relate to allegations that between 2011 and 2015, CBA made false or misleading representations to customers that the insurance policies had uses or benefits to those customers when part or all the benefits were not available.
2020
Australian court fines CBA $5 million over customer overcharging
Fine or penalty
The Federal Court ordered the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to pay a $5 million penalty over failures involving AgriAdvantage packages, which led to customers being overcharged fees and interest and underpaid interest on savings. The court accepted that the conduct was not deliberate.
Company response
Refund or compensation — CBA
CBA has refunded more than $8 million to 8660 customers it overcharged fees and interest on loans and also underpaid interest on savings, through its AgriAdvantage packages.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court on Friday ordered the bank pay a $5 million penalty.
CBA has refunded more than $8 million to 8660 customers it overcharged fees and interest on loans and also underpaid interest on savings, through its AgriAdvantage packages.
CBA quickly made complete admissions to the conduct in making misleading representations and accepting payment where there were reasonable grounds to believe services would not be provided.
2019
CDPP proceedings against CommInsure
Lawsuit filed
The source reports CDPP proceedings against CommInsure concerning alleged contraventions related to telephone sales of simple life insurance products by CMLA. The source does not state when the proceedings began or report a determination.
Source excerpt
ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS RELATE TO TELEPHONE SALES OF SIMPLELIFEINSURANCE PRODUCTS BY CMLA IN PERIOD 7 OCTOBER 2014 TO 16DECEMBER 2014
2018
Royal Commission misconduct findings
The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry examined Commonwealth Bank conduct, including fees charged to deceased customers for financial advice and allegations involving fraud, deception and money laundering. The proceedings contributed to wider criticism of the bank's governance and internal culture.
2018
Bank bill swap rate manipulation case
Commonwealth Bank settled an ASIC case for A$25 million and admitted unconscionable conduct relating to manipulation of the bank bill swap rate on five occasions between February and June 2012.
2013
Environmental financing controversy
Market Forces and other campaigners criticized Commonwealth Bank for financing coal and gas activity associated with the Great Barrier Reef, arguing that the bank's lending conflicted with environmental commitments.
2004
Misleading Cricket Home Loan advertising
The Federal Court declared that television and branch advertising for a home-loan promotion was misleading. The campaign prominently claimed that no establishment fee was payable, while eligibility depended on customers holding or obtaining additional banking products. The ruling found that the important qualification was not communicated clearly enough to correct the headline impression.