Star Entertainment Group - Penalty Judgment

Overview of orders

‘…the present case is ultimately a reminder that corporate governance failures seldom arise because information is entirely absent. More commonly, they arise because “the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet”; or because warning signs are insufficiently pursued; or because obvious questions are left unasked. The duty imposed by s 180(1) exists to guard against precisely those failures. The contraventions … were serious and the orders I will make must reflect that seriousness to provide adequate deterrence’ - ASIC v Bekier (Penalty Judgment) [2026] FCA 756 at [287]

The Court has ordered Mr Bekier to pay a pecuniary penalty of $700,000 and disqualified him from managing corporations for six years, and Ms Martin to pay a pecuniary penalty of $400,000 and disqualified her from managing corporations for seven years.

Mr Bekier and Ms Martin were also ordered to pay 45% of ASIC’s costs.

Recognising that ‘there is no tariff for governance failures within large publicly listed corporations’, Justice Lee traversed a range of considerations in making the orders, having regard to established legal principles on pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders. Justice Lee described the task as an ‘evaluative’ one, directed to protection of the public, maintenance of proper standards of corporate governance and the achievement of adequate deterrence.

In relation to general deterrence, Justice Lee made a number of comments on high-risk industries in particular, noting that senior executives of companies operating in such industries must understand that failures of the kind established by the contraventions may attract substantial personal consequences.

Consistency and parity were particularly relevant considerations in the case given two other former executives had previously admitted to similar breaches and settled with ASIC: the former Chief Financial Officer (pecuniary penalty of $60,000 and 9-month disqualification) and the former Chief Casino Officer (pecuniary penalty of $180,000 and 18-month disqualification). While Justice Lee pointed to material distinctions, the judgment makes it clear that these outcomes moderated the penalties imposed on Mr Bekier and Ms Martin.  

Role of the executives

The nature and seniority of the executives’ roles and functional responsibilities were given significant weight by the Court.

Justice Lee commented that Mr Bekier’s role as Managing Director & CEO materially aggravates the seriousness of the conduct, recognising that ‘he was the most senior member of management and was required to take all reasonable steps to ensure the Board was informed of matters which exposed Star to legal, financial or reputational risks and matters which created or increased the risk that Star or its subsidiaries would breach their legal obligations’.

Justice Lee also addressed the particular legal, governance and risk responsibilities of Ms Martin’s positions (ie as Company Secretary and Chief Legal and Risk Officer) and described her as ‘one of the principal custodians of information bearing upon several risks, which she ought to have taken all necessary steps to have raised with the Board’.

Commentary on non-executive directors

The Court’s earlier findings on liability highlighted the central importance of proactive board oversight of an organisation’s business and its specific risks, while maintaining the important distinction between the roles of the board and management.

In the penalty judgment, Justice Lee emphasised that although no contraventions were ultimately established against the non-executive directors (given the terms of ASIC’s pleaded case), this did not represent an endorsement of the quality of the Board’s governance culture or practices during the relevant period.

Justice Lee reiterated that the ‘evidence did not generally reveal a picture of vigilant non-executive directors taking a diligent and intelligent interest in the information available to them, understanding that information and applying an enquiring mind to their responsibilities’ and raised concerns about a ‘passive or insufficiently inquisitorial approach to information bearing upon significant risks’.  

Justice Lee also reflected on the expectation of directors to pursue lines of inquiry with ‘the rigour one might expect by those prepared to accept office as a director of a corporation conducting a business pregnant with inherent and obvious risks’.

The proceedings overall highlight the critical importance of boards understanding risks inherent to their organisations and exercising sustained and active oversight.

ASIC response

In ASIC’s media release, ASIC Chair Sarah Court said ‘senior executives have a critical responsibility to identify, escalate and properly manage serious risks within their organisations. These failures occurred in a highly regulated environment and contributed to significant governance breakdowns at Star. Penalties of this scale reflect the seriousness of their conduct and send a strong message to other senior executives of listed companies that failures of this type are unacceptable.’