Star’s senior lawyer fails to explain away misconduct, court finds

“The community is entitled to expect that a solicitor occupying such positions and having such responsibilities, within one of Australia’s largest casino operators, will display professional independence, accuracy and judgement of a high order,” Justice Lee said.

In his March liability judgment, Justice Lee found Martin – along with Star’s CEO Matthias Michael Bekier – contravened the Corporations Act by her failure to address and respond to money laundering risks within the Suncity junket and with its CEO, Alvin Chau.

Martin also played a role in misleading Star’s bankers at National Australia Bank (NAB) as to the casino’s use of UnionPay cards, known as CUP, which had been prohibited for gambling purposes.

Justice Lee was satisfied Martin knew of a “miscellany of alarming information” about Suncity that meant maintaining the casino’s association “gave rise to the pleaded foreseeable risks of harm”.

That is made all the more concerning when considered against the backdrop of Martin “being the most senior solicitor employed by Star”.

“The seriousness of the conduct is aggravated by the fact that it occurred within a casino operator already facing mounting concerns regarding junkets, regulatory compliance and money-laundering risks,” Justice Lee said in his written decision.

VIEW ALL

While Martin made statements of acceptance and regret, Justice Lee said this was “principally directed to the consequences suffered by her”, including her inability to find employment. Her last contract at the RACQ was terminated after Justice Lee’s liability decision.

Her evidence that she did not intend to cause reputational risks and regret that she did not do more fell short because it did not directly acknowledge the “essential character of what occurred and did not squarely confront” that communications with NAB were false.

“The difficulty was not that Martin denied wishing to expose Star to reputational or regulatory harm. Most commercial misconduct of this character occurs because those involved believe, rightly or wrongly, that the perceived commercial advantage justify the risk.

“The more significant difficulty was that even now the evidence remained framed largely in terms of inadvertence, insufficient attention or failure to appreciate the consequences, rather than candid acceptance of the true character of the record,” Justice Lee said.

Martin did not object to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) request that she be banned from managing corporations for seven years, but did request that its $1,100,000 pecuniary penalty bid be reduced to $360,000.

In coming to the $400,000 amount, Justice Lee noted the $180,000 penalty and 18-month ban imposed on chief casino officer Gregory Hawkins and the $60,000 penalty and nine-month ban for the then-chief financial officer Harry Theodore. The latter was similarly involved in the misleading information provided to NAB.

Both Hawkins and Theodore struck agreed resolutions and made admissions “at the eleventh hour”, whereas Bekier and Martin strenuously denied wrongdoing during the lengthy trial.

Nevertheless, to impose a penalty as high as that suggested by ASIC would be “objectively irrational and leave Martin with a real and justified sense of grievance”, Justice Lee determined.

Bekier was banned from managing a corporation for six years and ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $700,000.

Citation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Bekier (Penalty Judgment) [2026] FCA 756.