ASIC v Bekier: ASIC seeks millions in penalties and lengthy disqualification of former officers of Star Entertainment

On 27 and 28 May 2026, the Federal Court heard submissions on penalties, disqualification periods, and costs to be imposed on Mr Bekier (Star's former CEO) and Ms Martin (Star's former Group General Counsel, Company Secretary and Chief Legal and Risk Officer) following the Court's finding that both contravened their duty of care and diligence under section 180(1) of the Corporations Act.

As we've previously reported, the Court found that Mr Bekier possessed critical information about serious risks and failed to act on it or inform the board, and that Ms Martin failed in her duty to escalate material legal and compliance risks to the board despite being the officer responsible for doing so.

What is ASIC seeking?

ASIC is seeking substantial penalties and disqualification orders:

• Mr Bekier (former CEO): A pecuniary penalty of $1.3 million and a disqualification order of eight years.

• Ms Martin (former General Counsel, among other roles): A pecuniary penalty of $1.1 million and a disqualification order of seven years.

To put them in context: 

Issues on penalties and costs discussed at the May hearing

• Failing to settle: The CFO and Chief Casino Officer settled prior to trial and accepted responsibility, receiving penalties of $180,000 / $60,000 and disqualification periods of 18 / 9 months. Mr Bekier and Ms Martin contested the matter to a full trial. A heavily contested issue was whether the gulf between those earlier penalties and what ASIC now seeks ($1.3M / $1.1M and 8 / 7 years) was proportionate.

• Difference in roles: ASIC noted that Mr Bekier and Ms Martin operated in different areas of risk. The Court observed that Ms Martin's professional qualification as a solicitor is an important circumstance in assessing her standard of care.

• Remorse and insight: ASIC said that the lack of remorse or insight was a relevant factor. There was discussion around whether holding lack of remorse against Mr Bekier should be negated because he is likely to appeal. However, the Judge seemed to resist such an assertion because remorse is a question of fact, regardless of any potential appeal.

• Causation and loss: ASIC pointed to a causal link between the contraventions and actual harm to the company from the Bell Report findings. The Court appeared to accept that causal link and expressed a view that the Court's own findings in the liability judgment appear to be on all fours with the Bell Report findings.

• D&O insurance and ability to pay: The Court queried whether the respondents would truly be out of pocket. ASIC showed evidence that D&O insurance and an indemnity are in place, and that neither Mr Bekier nor Ms Martin raised financial difficulties paying the penalty sought.

• Costs: ASIC sought 60% of costs jointly and severally. Mr Bekier argued for 15%. Ms Martin argued for 9%.