EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 196

ASIC v Bekier

A Federal Court liability judgment about Star Entertainment directors and officers, section 180 duties, risk information, board oversight...

Federal Court of Australia5 Mar 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Directors and senior officers cannot hide behind information overload.
  • A Federal Court liability judgment about Star Entertainment directors and officers, section 180 duties, risk information, board oversight and senior legal...

Use this to check

  • Directors and officers need active systems for identifying and monitoring material risk.
  • Information overload is not an answer if the board has not controlled what information it receives.
  • Legal, risk and compliance officers can have section 180 exposure tied to their actual responsibilities.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • ASIC brought civil penalty proceedings against former directors and officers of The Star Entertainment Group.
    • The liability judgment focused on two broad areas of Star's casino business: dealings with junkets, especially Suncity, and interactions with NAB and UnionPay cards.
    • ASIC alleged that Star's CEO and managing director, its senior in-house lawyer and risk officer, and several non-executive directors failed to exercise the care and diligence required by section 180(1) of the Corporations Act.
    • The alleged risks included suspicious conduct, apparent money laundering and other potential criminal activity connected with Suncity, plus the continued use of UnionPay cards for gambling despite communications that the cards were not to be used for that purpose.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether directors and officers of Star contravened section 180(1) of the Corporations Act by failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence in relation to junket-related risks, Suncity, UnionPay card use, board information flow, and the scope of legal and risk officer responsibilities.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court found that Mr Bekier contravened section 180(1) in relation to the KPMG reports, Suncity in 2018, Suncity in 2019 and UnionPay.
    • It also found contraventions by Ms Martin in relation to Suncity in 2018, Suncity in 2019 and UnionPay.
    • ASIC did not establish its case against several non-executive directors.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Directors and senior officers cannot hide behind information overload.
  • Boards and executives need systems that surface material risk, require active questions and keep legal, compliance and operational risks visible before they become licence, bank or regulator problems.

Useful next steps

  • Directors and officers need active systems for identifying and monitoring material risk.
  • Information overload is not an answer if the board has not controlled what information it receives.
  • Legal, risk and compliance officers can have section 180 exposure tied to their actual responsibilities.
  • AI and technology can assist board comprehension, but accountability still sits with human decision-makers.
  • Create a board or leadership risk pack that highlights licence, banking, payment and regulator risks.

Practical read

This is a major public-company governance case, but the lesson travels down to smaller regulated businesses. The Court was not asking directors to know every operational detail. It was asking whether directors and senior officers had taken reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the company where serious risk signals existed.

The judgment is especially useful on information overload. Boards cannot simply say there was too much material to read. They need to control the information flow, ask for the right risk information and engage with obvious gaps. Technology may help directors understand information, but it does not replace human judgment.

For SMEs in regulated sectors, the practical version is simple. If your business depends on a licence, bank relationship, payment channel, platform relationship or major customer, your leadership team needs a risk reporting process that shows what could threaten it and what is being done about it.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Create a board or leadership risk pack that highlights licence, banking, payment and regulator risks.
  • Require management to explain gaps, not only report comfortable metrics.
  • Document questions asked by directors and actions taken after warning signs.
  • Give legal and compliance leaders clear escalation obligations.
  • Use AI or dashboards to improve comprehension, but keep accountable human review.

Key takeaways

  • Directors and officers need active systems for identifying and monitoring material risk.
  • Information overload is not an answer if the board has not controlled what information it receives.
  • Legal, risk and compliance officers can have section 180 exposure tied to their actual responsibilities.
  • AI and technology can assist board comprehension, but accountability still sits with human decision-makers.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help