Commonwealth Bank has reached a settlement with ASIC over alleged acts of fixing bank bill swap rates, drawing yet another line under yet another potentially damaging legal battle with yet another regulator. CBA's lawyers fronted the Federal Court of Australia in Melbourne yesterday, as ASIC continued its drawn-out case against BBSW manipulation that allegedly was being carried out by all major local banks, and by most foreign banks with treasury operations of any scale in Australia.In contrast with Wednesday's record A$700 million penalty for failures in its anti-money laundering systems, CBA this time was presented with a more modest bill, comprised of a $5 million penalty, a payment of $15 million to a financial consumer protection fund and a $5 million payment towards ASIC's costs of the litigation and its investigation.CBA has also agreed to enter into an enforceable undertaking with ASIC, under which an independent expert will be appointed to review controls, policies, training and monitoring in relation to its BBSW business. Justice Beach, who had heard a previous iteration of the case being run by ASIC, said CBA attempted to engage in conduct which if carried out as intended would have been in contravention of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.In a judgment that had echoes of the reasoning delivered by his colleague, Justice David Yates the previous day, Justice Jonathan Beach said: "... whilst the quantum of any pecuniary penalty is ultimately a matter for me, ... in summary, I have determined that a pecuniary penalty fixed in the sum of $5 million is appropriate. "That sum together with the other payments all totalling $25 million should be an adequate denouncement of and deterrence against the unacceptable trading behaviour of individuals within CBA that ought to have known better and a bank that ought to have better supervised its personnel...."CBA has admitted that it made bids, offers and traded in the Bank Bill Market on the specified occasions in an attempt to affect the AFMA submission process through which the BBSW would be set on the Contravention Dates and so that the BBSW would set to its advantage. "Now although I have not found that the bids and/or offers actually impacted where the BBSW set on any of those occasions, CBA's admissions are sufficient to disclose each of the elements of an attempted contravention of s 12CB of the ASIC Act on each such occasion," Justice Beach said.The judge explained to the court that even if the trading on the five days identified by ASIC was unsuccessful in moving the BBSW in the direction CBA wanted, it was the intention that counted."[The] bank's systems failed to ensure efficiency and fairness in the provision of financial services," the judge concluded.