Australia’s corporate regulator ASIC is prosecuting coal miner TerraCom’s directors over allegedly misleading statements to the ASX. Stephanie Tran reports.
The whistleblower in the TerraCom coal fraud case has expressed dismay that the corporate regulator has cut him out of proceedings and struck a deal directly with TerraCom, a deal which may conclude the investigation into Australia’s largest coal scandal without a probe into other coal corporations or any criminal charges.
It was the testimony of former executive and whistleblower Justin Williams which was regarded as the strongest evidence in the investigation, say sources close to the case.
There is a growing body of evidence that what happened at TerraCom and across Australia’s coal testing industry was not just spin. It was systemic fraud. And ASIC’s response appears to have barely scratched the surface.
A 2019 report by PwC, cited in ASIC’s originating process, examined 14 coal shipments involving TerraCom and found that in 12 cases, there were inconsistencies between the initial “Shipping Analysis Reports” and the later “Certificates of Analysis” or commercial invoices. In every one of those 12 cases, the changes favoured TerraCom financially.
The altered figures, which inflated the energy content or “Net Calorific Value” (NCV) of the coal, increased the total invoice value by more than $1.15 million across just those shipments. The total value of the shipments involved was approximately $81 million.
More damningly, PwC noted there was evidence of discussions between TerraCom and testing giant ALS between the issuing of the original and final certificates, raising concerns about potential coordination.
The report supported concerns raised by whistleblower Justin Williams, a former executive at TerraCom, who alleged the data had been deliberately manipulated at the company’s direction.
ALS admitted widespread “unjustified alterations”
In a statement issued to the ASX in April 2020, ALS admitted that between 45% and 50% of coal quality certificates had been manually amended without justification by staff in several of its Australian laboratories over more than a decade.
The practice had been occurring for more than a decade, across multiple labs in Newcastle, Mackay, Gladstone, and Emerald. Although ALS stated there was no evidence of bribery or third-party payments, the company’s admission alone points to industrial-scale malpractice that directly benefited Australian coal exporters.
Criticism of ASIC’s approach intensified in May after the regulator announced it had dropped whistleblower Justin Williams from its legal proceedings and settled a portion of the case for $7.5m.
Williams, a former executive at TerraCom, was the first to raise concerns about the alleged manipulation of coal quality certificates. His allegations were later supported by findings in the PwC report and underpinned ASIC’s original case.
Williams expressed dismay at the regulator’s decision to exclude him.
“I am disappointed to have missed the opportunity to have my evidence tested in court,” Williams said. “I was their key witness, and they cut me out. ASIC’s decision-making is bizarre. They have harmed me and my right to compensation, and ultimately, they’ve harmed the industry.”
It seems that there are some rocks that should not be looked under.
No answers from police
Despite clear evidence of systemic data manipulation, there is no indication that ASIC or law enforcement agencies have pursued criminal charges over the falsification of coal testing data, either against TerraCom or other companies named in connection with similar practices.
On 5 June 2025, NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann put questions to the Legislative Council about whether the NSW Police were investigating the matter reported by ALS in 2020 under Section 316 of the NSW Crimes Act, and whether any victims, including foreign utilities companies, had been notified.
The answer, delivered on 30 June, was startling in its vagueness. The NSW Police Force claimed it could not provide information “without further details.” It is not clear whether the investigation remains open or whether any foreign companies impacted by the falsified data have even been contacted.
ASIC’s broader performance under scrutiny
The regulator’s handling of the TerraCom case comes amid growing national scrutiny of its broader enforcement record. In July 2024, the Senate Standing Committee on Economics released a scathing report, concluding that ASIC had “comprehensively failed to fulfil its regulatory remit.”
The report found that ASIC was ill-equipped to keep pace with the complexity and scope of Australia’s corporate sector. It described the agency as “overburdened,” with a remit that had “outgrown its abilities,” resulting in a system of corporate regulation that lacks effective enforcement.
Despite ASIC being granted significant investigative and enforcement powers, the committee found these were “frequently underutilised,” leading to enforcement outcomes that were often mild and out of step with the seriousness of alleged offences.
Independent economist John Adams has also criticised ASIC’s enforcement record. According to Adams, just 0.3 per cent of all complaints to ASIC result in any form of enforcement action.
“If you’re a white collar criminal in this country, you would feel fairly confident of actually being able to engage in white collar crime”, Adams told ABC News in 2022.
Bullion failures. ASIC disregards Senate and ignores whistleblower evidence