Gentlemen Directors Need Not Apply: The Star Judgment and the Death of Passive Oversight

Matthias Bekier collected $4.4 million in FY2018 and $3.3 million in FY2019. Paula Martin held the title of Chief Legal and Risk Officer. Greg Hawkins was Chief Casino Officer. Harry Theodore ran the numbers as CFO.

On 5 March 2026, the Federal Court found that Bekier and Martin had failed to discharge their duties as officers of The Star Entertainment Group. Previously, Hawkins and Theodore had admitted to their own breaches and accepted their penalties. Four executives. Four failures. Combined compensation across those years running comfortably into eight figures.

The question for every director in Australia is simple: what exactly were they being paid for? And what, precisely, does it take to lose that money?

The mechanics of failure

Justice Michael Lee's judgment spans 1,959 paragraphs and covers territory familiar to anyone who followed the Bell Review or read the headlines about Star's dealings with Macau junket operator Suncity. The company's turnover from Suncity alone reached $2.1 billion in FY2017, $4 billion in FY2018, and $5.9 billion in FY2019. Suncity operated out of Salon 95, an exclusive gaming room at The Star's Sydney casino.

ASIC's case alleged that Bekier and Martin failed to properly address money laundering risks arising from these arrangements, failed to escalate concerns to the board, and in Martin's case, permitted misleading statements to be provided to National Australia Bank regarding the use of China UnionPay cards. Over $900 million was obtained by Star customers using CUP cards at NAB ATMs on Star premises between 2013 and 2019. Those transactions disguised gambling activity prohibited by CUP.

His Honour found that Bekier breached his duties in three respects: failure to properly deal with a KPMG report identifying AML/CTF deficiencies; failure to manage risks arising from Suncity's operations in Salon 95 even after media allegations concerning Crown; and failure to escalate the CUP card issue to the board. Martin was found liable on similar grounds.

The Victorian era is over

Toleration of the languid, listless indifference of gentleman directors of the Victorian and Edwardian ages is a thing of the past.

— Justice Michael Lee, ASIC v Bekier [2026] FCA 196

That sentence will be quoted in every boardroom induction for the next decade. Justice Lee's judgment contains several such observations, each landing with the precision of a stiletto between the ribs. The contemporaneous minutes, he noted, disclosed little by way of sustained scrutiny or insistence upon explanation from management in circumstances where risks were obvious. The Court did not see a portrait of directors actively pressing management with difficult questions.

ASIC Chair Joe Longo put the regulatory view plainly: senior executives have a critical responsibility to identify serious risks, ensure those risks are properly managed, and escalate them to the board. The era of collecting seven figures while waving away inconvenient reports appears to be concluding.

What of the seven non-executive directors who escaped liability? Justice Lee was critical of how ASIC pleaded its case, noting internal tensions. If executives failed to inform the board of material risks, how could non-executives be simultaneously liable for not acting on information they did not receive? The logic of ASIC's case contained contradictions the Court could not reconcile.

The price of passivity

The penalties already imposed offer some guidance. Theodore was disqualified from managing corporations for 18 months and ordered to pay $60,000. Hawkins received an 18-month disqualification and a $180,000 penalty. Both admitted breaches before trial. These were the executives who cooperated. Bekier and Martin fought to the judgment.

Bekier and Martin now face a penalty hearing. ASIC will seek financial penalties and disqualification orders against both. A case management hearing was scheduled for 23 March 2026 to fix the timetable.

The governance implications extend beyond casino regulation. Justice Lee's judgment clarifies that section 180(1) liability attaches to what an officer actually knew, not to hypothetical steps they might have taken. But it also makes clear that an officer cannot claim the volume of information they receive prevented them from exercising proper care.

What comes next

Star Entertainment Group remains under a special manager appointed by NSW gaming authorities. The company's casino licences remain under review. Bekier resigned in March 2022 after the Bell Inquiry began. Martin departed around the same time. Neither has held a comparable executive role since.

The penalty phase will determine what price Bekier and Martin pay beyond their professional reputations. Given the sums involved and the duration of the conduct, disqualification periods measured in years rather than months would surprise no one.

ASIC lost its case against the non-executive directors, but Longo made clear the regulator remains hungry. Nothing in this judgment, he said, has changed ASIC's appetite to hold corporate leaders to account for their governance failures.

For the executives who collected those millions while Suncity processed billions through Star's gaming rooms, the bill has finally arrived. Justice Lee's judgment offers a single, unambiguous lesson for every senior officer drawing a seven-figure salary: the Victorian gentleman director is dead. Languid, listless indifference will no longer be tolerated. Those who cannot cope with the volume of information they receive should find another line of work.

The penalty hearing will determine the dollar amount. The reputational cost was settled on 5 March 2026.