Case study (long release) 40%

You are required to write a 2,500 word case study about a regulatory failing that affected the Australian Market, due 22 April 2024, 11.59pm (Sydney Australia time).

Suggested topics are set out below. These case studies have been chosen due to the wealth of primary and secondary source material readily available:

• The collapse of HIH
• The collapse of Storm Financial
• The Commonwealth Bank financial planning scandal
• The Australian Wheat Board scandal
• The manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate
• The Esso-Longford explosion

However, if you have a strong desire to write a case study on an alternate topic, and you are of the view that there is a rich array of primary and secondary source material readily available on the alternate topic, you may write on the alternate topic provided that you secure my approval, via email, by 25 March 2024, 11.59pm (Sydney Australia time). When submitting a request for approval for an alternate topic, please submit it in the following format:

• Up to 500 words and a title of no more than 20 words which is sufficiently descriptive of the case study;
• A clearly defined question which the case study will attempt to address (most regulatory failings were caused by a multitude of issues. Pick one and focus on analysing that issue in detail);
• A short bibliography that you have consulted in the preparation of your proposal and which you will use in your case study. This list does not need to be exhaustive. Rather, this list simply needs to demonstrate that there are sufficient primary and secondary sources to be able to successfully write the case study.

The case study should be presented in the following format:

Summary of facts:  document the crime/misbehaviour/conduct/offense and the regulatory failure

Literature review:  analysing the existing literature relevant to the area of crime and regulation

Analysis:  how and why did the failure of regulation occur?

Policy implications:  analyse and evaluate the policy and regulatory implications of the case.

Each case study raises a diverse range of regulatory issues that cannot possibly be covered in 2,500 words. You are required to pick one discrete issue raised by your chosen case study and identify what that issue is in the "summary of facts". For example, if you chose the collapse of HIH, a major issue raised by the Royal Commission was audit independence which ultimately culminated in the CLERP 9 reforms, i.e. the "policy implications".

The case study must be analytical and explanatory and draw on the relevant literature. It should focus on the failure of regulation (who should have been regulating the situation and why it didn’t work) and link to relevant literature. You are expected to research beyond the set readings. Academic standards for structure, argument, presentation and referencing will apply.

This exercise meets Learning Outcome 1 (critically analyse the theoretical and practical challenges in regulating corporate crime) as it is based on a regulatory failing; and Learning Outcome 2 (describe and critically evaluate the legislation and policy applicable to various corporate offences); Learning Outcome 3 (identify, describe and critically assess the legal, criminal, and regulatory responses to corporate crime); Learning Outcome 4 (apply analytical thinking and problem-solving techniques to researching and solving complex corporate crime legal problems); and Learning Outcome 5 (apply relevant legal research methodologies and construct sound written and oral legal arguments. Communicate these to diverse audiences) as the case study is required to:

• document the crime/misbehaviour/conduct/offence and the regulatory failure;
• analyse the existing literature relevant to the area of crime and regulation;
• analyse how and why the failure of regulation occurred; and
• analyse and evaluate the policy and regulatory implications of the case.

Essay (long release) 60%

You are required to write a 5,000 word research essay on a topic of your choice related to the subject matter of this unit of study. The purpose is to allow you to explore and acquire knowledge of an area/issue of relevance to the regulation of corporate crime in much greater depth; to encourage you to think critically about that area/issue; and to develop skills of research, augmentation and analysis. The essay is due 24 May 2024, 11.59pm (Sydney Australia time).

To focus you (and for you to receive feedback prior to grading), please submit a proposal for your essay by no later than 22 April 2024, 11.59pm (Sydney Australia time). The proposal should be presented in the following format:

• A title of no more than 20 words which is sufficiently descriptive of the essay;
• A clearly defined question which the essay will attempt to address;
• An abstract of no more than 100 words summarising the argument of the essay;
• A more detailed overview of the essay’s outline, argument and methodology of no more than 400 words; and
• A short bibliography that you have consulted in the preparation of your proposal and which you will use in your essay. This list does not need to be exhaustive. Rather, this list simply needs to demonstrate that you have undertaken appropriate, preliminary research for your topic.

You are expected to research beyond the set readings. Academic standards for structure, argument, presentation and referencing will apply. Due to the consultative nature of this written assessment, anonymous marking may not be practical.

This exercise meets Learning Outcome 1 (critically analyse the theoretical and practical challenges in regulating corporate crime); Learning Outcome 2 (describe and critically evaluate the legislation and policy applicable to various corporate offences); Learning Outcome 3 (identify, describe and critically assess the legal, criminal, and regulatory responses to corporate crime); Learning Outcome 4 (apply analytical thinking and problem-solving techniques to researching and solving complex corporate crime legal problems); and Learning Outcome 5 (apply relevant legal research methodologies and construct sound written and oral legal arguments. Communicate these to diverse audiences).

Word Limit Penalty: A piece of assessment which exceeds the prescribed word limit will attract a penalty of 10% of the total marks available for the piece of assessment for every 100 words, or part thereof. The total word count for essay and other written assessments will exclude all footnotes and any bibliography (if required). 

Use of editors or proof-readers: In completing unsupervised assessments, students may use editors, proof-readers, and automated writing tools (including translation software, grammar checkers, reference generators and artificial intelligence), provided that all use is acknowledged and consistent with University policies and procedures including Academic Integrity Policy. Acknowledgment must be made in writing on the front of the work submitted for assessment, or in an appropriate footnote or other reference, and state the name of the person or software.  

Special consideration: Successful grants of Special Consideration may involve alternative tasks, as appropriate. 

Assessment requirement to pass a unit of study: A student must make a genuine attempt at all assessment tasks set out in this Unit of Study in order to obtain a Pass mark and grade (or above); otherwise an Absent Fail grade will be recorded as the student’s result for this Unit of Study.