BLAW1002 SEMESTER 2 2020 – ASSESSMENT 3: LEGAL CASE STUDY – SHORT QUESTION AND ANSWER (40 MARKS)

BLAW1002 SEMESTER 2 2020 – ASSESSMENT 3: LEGAL CASE STUDY – SHORT QUESTION AND ANSWER (40 MARKS)
For this assessment, students are to apply the concepts taught in the law modules for the unit (modules 9, 10 and 11) to a case study (Commonwealth Bank of Australia: The Unwitting Mule) and answer four short answer questions. To best answer these questions, students may be required to research beyond the principles taught in the lectures and tutorials, and will be required to reference any external material that is used to form the substance of their answers.
In breaking down the marks that are available for this assessment, each question is worth 9 marks for a total of 36 marks for the content portion of the assignment. The remaining 4 marks are awarded for the use of referencing and the structure / presentation of assignment submissions. Students are to integrate a completed cover page (a template is provided on blackboard) into their assignment document and submit their assignment file in soft copy format to a turnitin link in blackboard. A hard copy version of your assignment is not required to be submitted to your lecturer or tutor.
Assessment Questions
Read the Commonwealth Bank of Australia: The Unwitting Mule case study and answer the following questions:
1. What areas of law are pertinent to this case study? Describe what the identified areas of law cover, and explain how they are relevant to the issues raised in the case study. (9 marks)
2. What is the business structure of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA)? What does this structure say of the duties that the bank’s directors owe to its stakeholders, and how have the directors breached those duties by allowing the conduct that is detailed in the case study. (9 marks)
3. Describe the regulatory responsibility of AUSTRAC in the context of this case. What changes (if any) to the scope of their responsibility were brought about by the findings of the 2018 Royal Commission into the Banking sector. (9 marks)
4. What business risks were ignored by the CBA executives, and what good governance and compliance practices could have been implemented to alleviate these risks? (9 marks)
Below is the marking rubric which will be used to grade your submission:
Question 1 – Relevant areas of law 0 – 2 marks
Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.
Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 2 – 4 marks
Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.
Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
4 – 5 marks
Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail.
Demonstrates a
reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 5 – 7 marks
Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.
Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 7 – 9 marks
Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently
demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
/
9
Question 2 –
Business
Structure of
bank 0 – 2 marks
Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.
Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply 2 – 4 marks
Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.
Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in 4 – 5 marks
Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail.
Demonstrates a
reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply 5 – 7 marks
Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.
Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 7 – 9 marks
Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently
demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
/
9
those concepts in answering the question. answering the question.
those concepts in answering the question.
Question 3 –
Regulatory responsibility of
AUSTRAC 0 – 2 marks
Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.
Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 2 – 4 marks
Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.
Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
4 – 5 marks
Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail.
Demonstrates a
reasonable conceptual understanding and a sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 5 – 7 marks
Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.
Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. 7 – 9 marks
Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently
demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
/
9
Question 4 – Business risks,
Good Governance and Compliance 0 – 2 marks
Very limited knowledge of topic with significant gaps between what was covered and what answer should have addressed.
Answer shows no conceptual understanding, or 2 – 4 marks
Limited knowledge of topic and will not have discussed relevant points in much detail.
Answer shows a general lack of conceptual understanding, or ability to apply those concepts in 4 – 5 marks
Reasonable knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or what was discussed often lacks detail.
Demonstrates a
reasonable conceptual understanding and a 5 – 7 marks
Good knowledge of topic but may not have discussed all relevant points in answer, or will have discussed all relevant points but will occasionally lack detail.
Mostly demonstrates a high level conceptual understanding and a very good ability to apply those 7 – 9 marks
Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic with discussion of all relevant points in answer. Consistently
demonstrates an excellent conceptual understanding and an outstanding ability to apply those concepts in answering the question.
/
9
ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. answering the question.
sound ability to apply those concepts in answering the question. concepts in answering the question.
Referencing/Str ucture/ Presentation 0 marks
Cover page not included.
Incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes.
No in-text referencing or reference list provided. 1 mark
Cover page not included. Largely incoherent writing style with structure not appropriate to short answer format. Recurrent grammar, formatting and spelling mistakes. Either in-text referencing or reference list missing. 2 marks
Cover page may / may not have been included. Good writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format.
Inconsistent grammar, formatting and spelling applied. In-text referencing and reference list incomplete or contains errors. 3 marks
Cover page included. Very good writing style with structure largely appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling mostly accurate. In-
text referencing and reference list provided that accords with Chicago referencing system. 4 marks
Cover page included. Fluent writing style with structure appropriate to short answer format. Grammar, formatting and spelling accurate
(little to no mistakes).
In-text referencing and reference list provided that accords with Chicago referencing system.
/
4
Referencing and appropriate acknowledgement of sources
Most often errors in referencing are incidental or clearly inadvertent. In the event of a level one incident of plagiarism occurring, a student may be contacted by the University and required to undertake further training or remedial work in relation to referencing. Where the lack of correct referencing appears to contravene the University policy on plagiarism, the student’s paper will be referred to the Unit Coordinator and dealt with according to University policy. This may amount to academic misconduct.
An important aspect of the University Plagiarism Policy is recognition that not all plagiarism incidents are intentional or involves cheating. If students are not learning as expected, they will be made aware of their difficulties and helped to improve. Those who deliberately choose to cheat by way of plagiarism, however, will be identified and dealt with accordingly.
Students are strongly advised to understand their responsibilities in relation to correct referencing and should consult the unit outline and the referencing information in the Learning Hub section of the Blackboard site.
Format of assignments
Assignments cannot be handwritten and must comply with the following format requirements. Those assignments, which do not conform to these requirements without prior agreement of the unit coordinator, will either be returned to the student unmarked or will have marks deducted:
Document type: Word or pdf (pdf preferred).
Font: Arial or similar font – no smaller than 12 point in size.
Pages: Numbered in top or bottom margin.
Spacing: Appropriate line spacing and paragraph spacing.
Margins: At least 2.5 cm top, left, right & bottom.
Labelling of assignment file: Should include student’s Curtin ID number, their first and last names, and the title of the assignment (BLAW1002 Assessment 3 – Legal Case Study).
Presentation
A well-presented assessment will consider and meet the following criteria:
• Cover sheet (located on Blackboard under the ‘Assessment’ tab) must be completed and integrated into your assignment document (The system will only allow you to submit one file so you won’t be able to submit your cover page and assignment document separately).
• Appropriate sentence structure.
• Correct grammar, spelling and punctuation.
• Paragraph size and breaks appropriate.
• Consistent format.
• Appropriate use of headings and sub-headings.
• Within acceptable word limit.
• Appropriate referencing and acknowledgment of sources.
Word Limit
The total assignment should be a minimum of 2,500 words and not exceed 3,000 words.
Please provide a word count on your cover sheet. A penalty of 10% will be imposed on assignments that exceed the word limit. Markers however, have the discretion as to whether to apply the penalty for an additional 100 words, provided the discussion remains relevant. The assignment will not be assessed if it exceeds 3,250 words and will result in a ZERO mark.
The word count does not include the following:
• cover sheet;
• in-text referencing;
• referencing list; and
• headings or sub-headings.
Submission of Assignment Document
Please read the submission process carefully. Students should understand that compliance with instructions in relation to an assessment task is critical. Students MUST be aware that non-compliance with submission instructions can result in a mark of ZERO.
All assignments must be submitted by Friday, 6 November 2020 by 1PM (WST), unless an extension for legitimate reasons has been granted by the unit cocoordinator prior to the deadline.
Students are required to submit their assignment to Blackboard through a link provided in the ‘Assessment’ folder titled ‘Assessment 3 – Legal Case Study’. Submission links will be set up for each mode / location in which this unit is being studied for the relevant study period (e.g. Bentley Internal, Fully Online, Miri etc.), so please ensure that you submit your assignment document to the correct link.
The assignment will automatically be submitted to the plagiarism detection program, Turnitin. Please ensure that the version of your assignment submitted to the system is the final version and not an incomplete draft, as the version of your assignment that is in the system at the time the deadline passes will be the version that is marked for assessment purposes (even if it was a draft version that was inadvertently submitted).
Feedback on Assignments
All of the teaching staff are available to assist you with your learning in this unit. You should contact your lecturer or tutor if you need help understanding the course material or issues arising in the assignment. There is also a staffed Ed forum available for students to ask questions of the teaching team. You can also contact the unit coordinator if you are still unable to get the answer you are seeking. Please allow 48 hours (two working days) for a response to your query.
Unfortunately, it is just not possible for the teaching staff to review draft assignments for comment before submission as it is in effect double marking that would give some students an unfair advantage over others. If you require help with your assignment, either narrow the question or section of work to specific questions such as “what is meant by this part of the question?” or “do the areas of law pertain to a particular part of the Module 9 lecture?” Questions such as “have I done this part right?” or “should I include a discussion about this regulator in question 4?” will not be answered as any answer provided by the lecturer or tutor would directly/indirectly impact the mark that the querying student would receive for the assessment, causing the unfairness referred to above.
This assignment will be marked using a rubric, which will be provided to students ahead of time. In addition to providing the set feedback to students that is contained in the rubric, markers will also offer individual comments on what a student had done well and what they could have done better to earn a higher mark.
Assessments submitted early will not be marked before the due date. Please refer to the unit outline for the full procedure in relation to penalties for late submission and requests for an extension.