Case Study Instructions for: AMP Ltd (Australia) You are an investigator from a regulator, such as ASIC, assigned to research and report on the extent of non-compliance of the accounting standards by...

AMP Ltd
Course Name
Course Date
Student’s Name
AMP Ltd        6
Introduction
AMP is one of the largest wealth management and banking corporation of Australia, which has recently been caught for the misconduct and dishonestly. The company had lied to the regulators as well as the board of ASIC. The company has been charged for its fee for no service. The company had charged the customers numerous time even they have provided no services to the customers. The company had preferred its shareholders in the exchange and at the expense of its customers. The customers of the financial institutes suffer from the fundamental information asymmetry when it comes to financial advices. (Jessica Irvine, Clancy Yeates, 2018)
ASIC and AMP scandal
    ASIC is the financial reporting surveillance corporation which overseas the working of the companies and make sure that the company is following the standards and the rules of the accounting authorities. The committee board has put Royal commission as one of the in charge lately to overview the accounting reporting of the banks and the other institutes. The Royal commission brought into picture many corporations and particularly banks which have been reporting incorrect financial data and levying fees to the customers even when no services are being given to them. Royal commission board brought into picture the scandal of AMP Ltd. which is one of the biggest wealth management company of Australia. The commission highlighted the fact that the company have been charging fees to the customers even for no services being provided to them by the bank. This scandal was reported the ASIC and the other reporting committee.
Financial Statements and Reporting
The company stated that the company has mistakenly charged its customers for non-service, but the evidence showed that the company has done this numerous times. The company was charging customers fees for 90 days for the financial advice which the company had no intention of providing and nor did it provide. The company deliberately continue to...