In summary, the article CBA delayed refunds to avoid scrutiny (Frost, James.

), CBA was charged

with delaying refunds to customers who had been changed up to 34% on bank overdrafts, for over 2.5

years. There were over 25,000 individual breaches of the Corporations Act as the bank downplayed the

seriousness and stuck to its media policies over customer retention and trust. They seemed to use

overdraft facilities that pre plan to pick and target weak customers, such as those with Centrelink benefits.

They were also sending customers statements without any rate specified, which breached 912D

Corporations Act.

Overall, it affected over 2800 customers and Commonwealth Bank was estimated to repay $3

million in repayments to customers. This is serious because customers were being overcharged without

being informed, this is a crime, and it needs to be prevented in the future. $3M is a lot of money that was

laundered out of customers pockets over overdraft rates which were not even mentioned. Overall, this

suggests that CBA failed to ensure customer safe measures of ethical lending over greed for revenues.

In relation to the CFA Code of Conduct in Exhibit 3 of the Bruner case, I believe that most of

these points have been breached in both articles. Both cases failed to comply with ethical rules and

regulations, did not maintain independence and objectivity in activities, and purposely made unethical

decisions. They were dishonest and engaged in policies that mislead customers. Basically, they failed to

adhere to the CFA Code of Ethics and Conduct.