to prosecute Vizard for inside trading or any other crime. On 28 July 2005, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions formally announced that they had no provable evidence to proceed with any criminal case against Vizard. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC along with ASIC Chairman Jeff Lucy vigorously denied assertions by some sections of the media that they had "gone soft" on Vizard. ASIC Chairman Lucy made clear to the Parliament in his report of 13 September 2005 that there had never been any provable criminal case against Vizard despite the most vigorous examination by ASIC, and that this lack of any criminal case against Vizard was a view shared by both ASIC and the Attorney General: "In this case, criminal charges were not pursued against Mr. Vizard because the DPP was not satisfied that there was admissible, substantial and reliable evidence of the offence and therefore there were not reasonable prospects of securing a conviction…Whilst this was a decision for the DPP, it was also consistent with senior counsel advice that ASIC had independently received....When ASIC announced on 4 July that we were pursuing civil penalties against Mr. Vizard, there were some suggestions in the press that we had gone soft or that we had somehow been nobbled by government. I have unequivocally rejected those suggestions. They are entirely without foundation." One of the key issues in the case was that the trades in question had not been made by Vizard, but instead by a company called CTI, of which Vizard's accountant Gregory Lay was the sole shareholder and director. A Vizard family company lent CTI money to invest and had an agreement to receive back proceeds (less a management fee). Lay gave detailed statements to ASIC but none which supported any case against Vizard nor connected Vizard to the trades Lay had made. Separately, later in 2005 ASIC said it would commence civil proceedings against Vizard for breaching his director's duties by engaging in insider trading. ASIC's case was that Vizard had breached Sections 183 and 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (C'th). Vizard and ASIC settled the civil proceedings in 2005 on the basis that Vizard would not contest them, that ASIC made no allegations of dishonesty against Vizard, that a fine of $390,000 be imposed and Vizard agree to be disqualified from acting as a company director for between 3 and 5