Disclosure duties of banks raise some questions from a customer viewpoint. While many of Australia’s “laws” seem to show favour to the corporation, rather than “the little guy”.
So what are the disclosure duties of major banks and financial institutions in Australia, in giving information to their customers?
Would you expect Banks provide accurate information about transactions on customers’ bank statements? Or look to resolve any concerns those customers may have… But what if you start asking questions they choose to into “the too hard basket”?
Some of the key disclosure duties that major Australian banks have to their customers in this context include:
1. Accuracy and Clarity
Banks are required to ensure that the information provided to customers regarding their transactions is accurate, clear, and understandable.
2. Transaction Records
Banks must maintain detailed records of customer transactions and provide customers with access to these records upon request.
3. Disclosure of Fees and Charges
Banks are obligated to disclose any fees or charges associated with transactions or account services. And ensure customers are fully aware of the costs involved.
4. Fraudulent Transactions
Banks have a duty to promptly notify customers of any suspicious or potentially fraudulent transactions on their accounts. They should provide assistance in resolving such issues.
5. Privacy and Data Protection
Banks must follow strict privacy laws and regulations to safeguard customer information and not disclose it to unauthorized parties.
6. Dispute Resolution
Banks are required to have procedures in place for handling customer complaints and disputes. This including providing avenues for customers to seek resolution if they have concerns about transactions on their statements.
Banks Failure in Disclosure duties
Banks failing to fulfill their disclosure duties may face regulatory action, fines, or reputational damage. However, it seems that Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) choose not to participate.
AFCA may state that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over complaints about whether a bank supplies audited bank statements. So a complaint about the auditing process or the accuracy of audited financial statements, may not fall within AFCA’s mandate.
Auditing of financial statements
Auditing of financial statements falls under the realm of accounting and auditing standards. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) oversee financial matters.
Engaging directly with the bank is proving unfruitful. The many requests for clarification about discrepancies on bank statements by are receiving a disconcerting lack of response or cooperation.
The issue focuses around the bank’s assertion that all entries on bank statements “are authorised and verified”.
Funnily enough, when pressed to provide evidence supporting this claim, nothing is forthcoming. This failure on their part raises concerns about the transparency and integrity of the bank’s operations.
It stands to reason that the language used on bank statements is standard for all bank customers. If this is true, this issue extends beyond individual grievances and warrants examination as a systemic concern.
It appears that the disclosure duties of banks may potentially constitute negligence and false advertising. And banks risks misleading their customers and eroding trust in the financial system.
It is imperative that financial institutions uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and integrity in their operations.
Double-Entry Bookkeeping
Double-entry bookkeeping is an accounting method recoding each financial transaction in at least two different accounts, with debits and credits balancing out.
If banks maintain their records using double-entry bookkeeping principles, the details of these entries are typically not provided on customer bank statements. Because, bank statements usually present a snapshot of account transactions and balances.
But don’t tell the whole story. And they fail to show exhaustive details on the source of funds or the underlying double-entry bookkeeping entries used by the bank to manage its accounts.
For over three years, we’ve been chasing “audited accounts” from the bank. They refuse, fail, or neglect to address our concerns. What are they hiding?
If you, like us, are having issues in getting any evidence that your bank has “authorised and verified” the entries, let us know, in the comments section below.
22 June 2024 at 9:23 pm
i have it in writing from AFCA that they can only follow their guidelines and do not uphold banking laws as that is for the courts. However their advertising and Propaganda say they uphold banking laws to help protect the public.
i have an AFCA open case for over 13 months now due to a alleged loan from a dodgy lender that did not comply with the NCCP just for starters, many issues with this lender ASCF in Qld.
23 June 2024 at 7:54 am
Hey Bella,
AFCA is expected to act impartially and apply the law fairly and consistently to all parties involved in disputes or regulatory matters, regardless of their relative strength. Yet AFCA staff, in failing to respond, are presenting the same attitude.
Response from AFCA staff has failed to show any evidence of investigating ALL legitimate and validated issues raised, while presenting the notion that AFCA Actors believe the bank staff, without any consultation with their victims.
This severe mishandling by AFCA staff, in fulfilling legal and statutory obligations to address critical concerns regarding serious defects within the bank, is exacerbating criminal activities, to which AFCA staff could be seen as a contributing party.
The delinquent behavior of AFCA, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) in “passing the buck”, or pulling the “it’s not our job” card, rather than thoroughly investigating valid and genuine complaints, undermines the very purpose of their existence.
Seems they’ve forgotten AFCA’s mandate to protect consumers from unfair practices, and ensure that businesses operate in compliance with the law, prosecuting breaches of consumer laws, and educating consumers and businesses about their rights and obligations.
AFCA staff, who knowingly fail to perform their duties while receiving remuneration, could be seen as obtaining financial advantage by deception or dishonesty, which in itself is a crime.
AFCA staff are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and integrity in its regulatory activities. AFCA staff are expected to act impartially and apply the law fairly and consistently to all parties involved in disputes or regulatory matters, regardless of their relative strength.
By shirking their investigative duties and failing to hold institutions accountable for wrongdoing, AFCA staff are contributing to the culpable behaviour of the banks. This neglect perpetuates a culture of impunity within the financial sector.
Showing favoritism to a stronger party over a weaker party in a dispute would likely be seen as a breach of AFCA’s responsibilities, and any perception of bias or unequal treatment damages AFCA’s credibility and effectiveness.