代写论文：CBA
在当前的CBA方面，可以确定两个重要的伦理问题。首先，CBA正面临集体诉讼。有指控称该公司违反了反洗钱和反恐资助法律。它没有按照国内合法要求报告违规行为。任何形式的违反协议，法律等都必须报告或透露给投资者和利益相关者的安全。通过不报告违规行为，董事会将自己和公司置于集体诉讼的接受端。有证据表明，董事会确实意识到违规行为，但直到2017年才通知股票市场。许多人在诉讼中被指名为掌握了重大损失，公司董事等信息，首席执行官等。“最重要的问题是，当（CBA）知道其合规体系的完整和系统性分解时，它选择不做任何事情，并选择不向股东披露”（AAP ，2017年，第5段）。虽然真正的违约行为可能是出于错误，但是通过不报告违反行为是违反道德规范和道德规范的行为而隐瞒的。公司有义务在一些所需的财务义务方面保持透明，而不是如此，CBA显示出疏忽和疏忽。纳列夫先生向零售股东道歉，表明CBA确实对发生的道德问题感到抱歉，并正在尽力解决未来的道德问题。该案的主要原告威廉·菲利普表示，该公司只是在没有选择权的情况下才真正做出披露，因为他们正面临民事诉讼。因此，任何可以用来向公司提供道德违约责任的信贷仍然看起来有问题。
代写论文：CBA
Two significant ethical issues can be identified with respect to CBA in current times. Firstly, CBA is facing a class action law suit. Allegation exists that the company had breached anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism funding laws. It had not reported the breaches as required by legal compliance within the country. Any form of breach of protocol, law, etc must be reported or disclosed for investor and stakeholder security. By not reporting the breaches, the Board put itself and the company at the receiving end of a class action suit. There was evidence to understand that the Board was indeed aware of the breach and yet did not inform the share market until 2017. Many people were named in the lawsuit as having been privy to the information such as the substantial losses, the director of the company, the Chief officers, etc. “The most significant issue is that when (CBA) knew of the complete and systemic breakdown of its compliance system, it chose not to do anything about that and it chose not to disclose that to shareholders” (AAP, 2017, para. 5). While the actual breach maybe happened out of error, it was hiding the breach by not reporting it that raised compliance and ethical concerns. It is the obligation of companies to be transparent with respect to some needed financial obligations and in not being so, CBA showed oversight and carelessness. Mr Narev apologized to retail shareholders to show that CBA indeed were sorry about the ethical issue that had happened and were trying their best to resolve it for the future. William Philips, the lead plaintiff of the case, said that the company only really made the disclosures when they did not have a choice, because they were facing civil action. Therefore, any credit that could be meted to the company for coming forward on their ethical breach of duty to investor still looks questionable.
