Haftungsrisiko bei ausgelagerter AFSL-Compliance

Definition

ASIC makes it explicit that AFSL holders retain ultimate legal liability for all compliance obligations, including those performed by outsourced providers.[1][4][9] If vendor due diligence is superficial, or ongoing oversight and SLA monitoring are weak, outsourced compliance failures (e.g. late or incomplete breach reporting, defective monitoring programs, or policy gaps) can trigger 'reportable situations' obligations under s912DAA Corporations Act, ASIC surveillance and enforcement action. ASIC’s 2025 review of offshore service providers found material weaknesses in governance, risk management and monitoring arrangements, and has warned it will take action where outsourcing processes are inadequate.[4][9] Financial impacts include: (a) internal investigation and remediation projects often running into hundreds of thousands of dollars; (b) civil penalties under the Corporations Act which, post‑penalty reforms, can reach tens of millions of dollars for serious contraventions; and (c) indirect costs such as higher PI insurance premiums and lost business. For SME licensees, even a modest ASIC-enforceable undertaking or remediation program commonly costs in the low six‑figure range in legal, consulting and staff time.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Financial services firms in Australia 🇦🇺 waste AUD 100,000–5,000,000 per serious breach event on remediation, penalties and investigation costs when outsourced AFSL compliance providers fail. Automation of vendor due diligence, SLA monitoring and breach-escalation workflows significantly reduces this risk.

Affected Stakeholders

AFSL Responsible Managers, Chief Risk Officer / Head of Risk, Head of Compliance, Board and Non‑Executive Directors, General Counsel, Vendor Management / Procurement

Related Business Risks