The Federal Court’s decision in ASIC v Bekier (Liability Judgment) is a landmark governance case that deserves attention well beyond the casino sector. Handed down on 5 March 2026, the judgment provides a clarification of where accountability lies when critical risk information is siloed within an organisation.
While the Court found that former Star Entertainment MD and CEO Matthias Bekier and former Chief Legal & Risk Officer Paula Martin breached their duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the seven former non-executive directors were not found to have breached theirs.
Prior to this judgment, the former Chief Financial Officer, Harry Theodore, and the former Chief Casino Officer, Gregory Hawkins, admitted breaches of their duties as officers of Star Entertainment before the trial. Previously, the Court imposed financial penalties against Mr Theodore and Mr Hawkins and disqualified them from managing a public company for 18 months and nine months, respectively.
At first glance, some may read that as a narrow legal result: executives liable, non-executive directors not liable. But that is far too comfortable a reading.
The real significance of the judgment is what it states about where responsibility sits when serious risk information is known inside an organisation. ASIC’s case centred on Star’s handling of anti-money laundering (AML)and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) risk, criminal risk linked to the Suncity VIP gambling room known as Salon 95 within its Sydney operations and issues involving the utilize of China UnionPay cards by casino customers. ASIC’s summary of the decision creates clear that the Court found failures by senior executives in properly managing and escalating those matters.
That point should land with every executive team. If you are the person holding the critical information or the person expected to interpret, frame or elevate it, governance is not happening somewhere above you. You are part of it. And if serious legal, regulatory or reputational issues are not properly surfaced to the board, personal exposure can follow.
ASIC Chair Joe Longo distilled that neatly when he declared the Court found that senior executives have a critical responsibility to identify serious risks, ensure they are properly managed and escalate them to the board.
But the decision is not exactly flattering to boards either.
Justice Lee declared the evidence did not present ‘a portrait of directors actively pressing management with difficult questions’ about whether the business was being conducted ethically, lawfully and to the highest available standard. That is a striking line becautilize it captures a governance problem many organisations recognise instantly: the board is technically informed, but not always meaningfully engaged.
The other line that will be quoted often, and should be, is this: ‘directors cannot rely upon an inability to cope with the volume of information they receive.’ That comment goes to the heart of a modern governance challenge.
Board packs are hugeger than ever. Dashboards are denser. Appfinishices multiply. The result is often more reporting, but not necessarily more insight. The judgment is a reminder that information overload is not an excutilize. Boards must control the information they receive, and directors must take reasonable steps to understand and engage with it.
Practical implications for business leaders
- For boards, this is a prompt to question whether reporting really supports directors see the issues that matter most.
- For executives and control functions, it is a reminder that escalation must be timely, candid and usable, not buried in process or softened in tone.
- For organisations generally, it reinforces that governance is not just about frameworks and committee structures. It is about whether the right people receive the right information, clearly enough and early enough, to act on it.
The decision built in the case against Start Entertainment does not state that every governance weakness will produce liability for every director. However, it does state something equally important: if senior leaders sit too close to serious risks and fail to act with sufficient care, diligence and transparency, the law may see to them first.
That is why board members and executives everywhere should take notice of the judgment in this case.
It highlights a governance reality that applies almost everywhere: risk becomes dangerous when it is normalised, diluted or left sitting in the wrong part of the organisation for too long.
How we can support
Understanding your obligations under the Corporations Act is essential for protecting both your business and your personal standing as a director or executive. If you would like to discuss how to strengthen your internal reporting frameworks or review your governance structures, please reach out to your local William Buck advisor.
Leave a Reply