Court orders penalties and other relief against Westpac for BBSW conduct (ASIC, 2018)
Judgment entered
Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In November 2018 the Federal Court ordered Westpac Banking Corporation to pay a pecuniary penalty of A$3.3 million, the maximum available, for unconscionable conduct in setting the BBSW benchmark in 2010, and to commission an independent review of its systems. The court had found in May 2018 that on four dates Westpac traded with a dominant purpose of influencing the yields of bank bills and where BBSW set.
The record
| Agency | ASIC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 18-341MR |
| Date filed | 2018-11-09 |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Westpac Banking Corporation |
| Techniques | Price manipulation |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- A$3.3m
What is alleged to have happened
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission announced this matter on November 9, 2018 as release 18-341MR. The respondent named is Westpac Banking Corporation (0 individuals, 1 entity).
ASIC's 2016 case alleged trading that created an artificial price and false appearance in products priced off BBSW; the court found unconscionable conduct on four dates in 2010 and inadequate procedures. The release also recounts earlier ANZ, NAB and CBA outcomes, which are not this record's figures. This library tags the matter as price manipulation.
The relief recorded in our data is a pecuniary penalty of A$3.3 million, recorded in its native currency. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2018-11-09 ASIC media release
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFTC v. George Santos (price manipulation, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-07-31 | Price Manipulation | $17.5k | settled |
| Victorian man sentenced in market manipulation case (ASIC, 2025) | ASIC | 2025-12-12 | Price Manipulation , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| ASIC v. Delta Power & Energy (Vales Point) Pty Ltd (price manipulation, 2025) | ASIC | 2025-06-30 | Price Manipulation , Marking The Close | — | filed |
| Victorian man charged over alleged market manipulation (ASIC, 2025) | ASIC | 2025-03-14 | Price Manipulation , Wash Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Marco Babini, et al. (price manipulation, 2024) | SEC | 2024-09-27 | Price Manipulation | — | judgment |
| CFTC v. TOTSA TotalEnergies Trading SA (price manipulation, 2024) | CFTC | 2024-08-27 | Price Manipulation | $48m | settled |