Peter A Clarke

People looking into other peoples bank accounts without authority is a longstanding and chronic problem in banks and other financial institutions. It gave rise to a ground breaking case recognising a cause of action for breach of privacy in Canada with the case of Jones v Tsige in 2012. Often the breaches involve a person checking on the accounts of a family member, partner or neighbour.  Banks have quite good controls to detect such suspicious activity.  The almost invariable outcome is instant quiet termination.  But the unauthorised access into Prime Minister Albanese’s banking records is not low key and the result has not been quiet dismissal.  As the Australian reports with Ernst & Young graduate charged over allegedly accessing prime minister’s bank details it has been high profile and charges have been laid against the alleged snooper.  As the story notes the bank in question, the CBA, discovered the breach when its internal system triggered a flag.  That is the common method.

While the Prime Minister almost certainly has a claim for serious invasion of privacy against the EY graduate whether he does anything is another question.

The article provides:

Another person has also been charged in connection with the alleged incident, who is understood not to be employed by EY.

It is alleged they accessed the material while one of pair was on secondment at the Commonwealth Bank.

The EY graduate was terminated from their employment after an internal investigation.

CBA is believed to have alerted EY after the bank’s internal system triggered a flag.

The Australian Federal Police said they charged two Sydney men on May 6, with allegedly accessing restricted personal banking data belonging to a federal parliamentarian.

A 21-year-old man was charged with one count of unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data.

He was also charged with one count of using a carriage service to make available, publish or otherwise distribute information that is personal data, of one or more individuals, and engaged in that conduct in a way that reasonable persons would regard, in all the circumstances, as menacing or harassing towards those individuals.

A 25-year-old man was also charged with one count of cause unauthorised access to restricted data intending to cause the access and knowing that the access was unauthorised.

The two men are facing criminal charges. The men were bailed, and appeared at the Downing Centre Court in Sydney on Tuesday.

“As the matter is before the court, no further comment will be made,” an AFP spokeswoman said.

EY and CBA both declined to comment when contacted by The Australian.

Workplace culture at EY has been problematic in the past, with former sex discrimination commissioner Elizabeth Broderick made 27 recommendations from a review into the consultancy.

The recommendations included revising performance criteria, charging service lines a cost for churning staff and reducing overwork and long hours.

Ms Broderick was called in after the suicide of a senior audit staffer at EY’s Sydney office in 2022.

From a 142-page report, it was reported that a “significant minority” or 26 per cent of staff feel excluded from the workplace.

It reported 15 per cent of EY staff surveyed experienced bullying, 10 per cent reported sexual harassment, and 8 per cent experienced racism.

More recently in May, EY intern Ofir Larsen alleged she was excluded from participating in the Broderick review after she alleged her boss grabbed her breast and slapped her thigh in a karaoke bar.

Ms Larsen alleged that her manager, Harry Young, touched her sexually on a work night out in January 2023. EY has admitted these allegations, according to documents filed in the Federal Court.

Ms Larsen resigned from EY in late June 2023, filed her case against the firm in November last year. She is seeking a public apology and damages for past and future economic loss, including interest and costs.

EY has denied Ms Larsen is owed an apology but admits that she is entitled to compensation, with the figure to be determined by the evidence.