ASIC’s Visy and Pratt notices put reporting responsibility back on the agenda

ASIC’s reported action involving Visy and Pratt companies is a useful prompt for accountants and tax agents to revisit a familiar but consequential question with relevant clients: who is responsible for the financial report, and how will the team know it has been lodged on time? In media release 26-252MR, ASIC says 21 companies within the Visy/Pratt group paid infringement notices totalling $4.158 million for allegedly failing to lodge financial reports for the year ended 30 June 2025 on time. [ASIC media release 26-252MR](https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2026-releases/26-252mr-visy-and-pratt-companies-pay-over-41-million-in-infringement-notices-for-failing-to-lodge-financial-reports-on-time) The notice total and the allegation need to be read together. ASIC describes the reports as allegedly late; payment of a notice does not, by itself, establish an admission or conviction. ASIC says payment does not amount to an admission of guilt or liability, and the companies are not treated as convicted of the alleged offence. That distinction matters in client conversations: explain what ASIC reported, avoid presenting an allegation as a court finding, and direct readers to the source for the details of the notices. ASIC’s release says each of the listed companies paid a $198,000 notice for allegedly failing to lodge by 31 October 2025. ASIC Commissioner Kate O’Rourke emphasized that entities with a financial reporting obligation must lodge reports on time. The release identifies public and large proprietary companies among the reporting entities within the enforcement message. For a practice, the useful response is a focused review of the reporting workflow with clients for whom financial reporting i

s relevant. Confirm which entity and reporting period are in scope, identify the people responsible for preparing, approving and lodging the report, and agree how deadline ownership will be visible. A calendar entry can help, but it is only useful if it has a named owner, a lead time for resolving missing information, and a clear route for escalation when the timetable is at risk. Keep the final lodgment confirmation with the working papers so the practice can distinguish preparation progress from completed lodgment. A simple example: a client group has several entities and different people handle accounts, approvals and external filings. At the start of the reporting cycle, the accountant can ask the client to confirm which entities have a reporting obligation and who will own each step. The practice and client can then agree on reminder dates and the evidence that will confirm lodgment. If responsibility or scope is uncertain, pause the assumption and have the client obtain advice from an appropriately qualified professional; do not infer an obligation from this media release alone. This is a workflow example, not a conclusion about any reader’s legal position. ASIC says its surveillance of late and non-lodgement has resulted in 48 infringement notices totalling more than $9.3 million since it commenced in August 2025. For accountants and tax agents, the practical takeaway is to make responsibility and evidence visible early, then check that the agreed steps have been completed. The ASIC release and its linked infringement notices register provide the source material for readers who want to examine the reported action. For more resources for Australian accounting practices, visit [Fedix](https://home.fedix.ai/resources/blog).