A sense of incredulity swept across his face, accompanied by a dash of incomprehension.

Key points: Study suggests there has been $700 billion in super fees extracted since 1992

Study suggests there has been $700 billion in super fees extracted since 1992 Total pool of superannuation is just over $2.6 trillion

Total pool of superannuation is just over $2.6 trillion AMP and the big four banks admit they've charged around $220 million in fees for no service

How could it be, he was asked, that an investor who put his money into an AMP superannuation account, into the safest possible investment there is — cash — could end up poorer?

And why is it that a deposit into an AMP bank account, into a cash facility, earns a significantly greater return than a cash investment in AMP superannuation?

Rick Allert, distinguished businessman, director and chairman of numerous high-profile public companies over the past few decades, paused briefly, his wire-rimmed glasses delicately balanced at the end of his nose.

"You would have to ask the client," he responded.

This time it was Michael Hodge's turn for a double take.

"I would have to ask who, sorry?" the royal commission's counsel assisting asked.

"The client, why did they do that?

"Your point is why are they foolish enough to invest their money with AMP?

"No, that's not what I'm saying at all," Mr Allert responded, a note of annoyance creeping into his voice.

"I'm saying what's in their mind when they put their money into cash, knowing the return they're getting."

Mr Allert, a man who once chaired AMP's arch rival AXA Asia Pacific and who now chairs the trustee body whose role it is to look after the interest of clients, left the hearing in Melbourne's William St bruised and shaken — the latest but perhaps the most illustrious in a long line during the past fortnight.

There was an obvious answer to the counsel assisting's question, one that Mr Allert studiously avoided. AMP's fees on superannuation are so exorbitant, they not only eroded any returns, they ate into the capital.

They weren't getting a return. They were being taken.

Overcharging and theft

A couple of enduring themes have emerged so far from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

The main one is the flagrant disregard with which clients are held by the industry, manifested in the fee gouging that has become standard industry practice.

So egregious and widespread has this become, evidence has emerged that it has fostered a climate of "anything goes" where overcharging has morphed into systemic theft.

It is one thing for an industry to charge clients far too much for providing a service. It is quite another to deliberately charge enormous fees for delivering nothing at all.

A recent study by University of NSW economist Nicholas Morris estimated the financial industry had extracted around $700 billion in fees from the national savings pool since 1992, when compulsory superannuation was introduced.

Given the total pool is now worth just over $2.6 trillion, that's an extraordinary proportion — almost a quarter.

The other great theme that has emerged is the unwillingness of regulators to enforce and uphold the law.

Who's the boss — the client or the paymaster?

During his stay in the witness box, Mr Allert was confronted with some uncomfortable questions that went to the heart of the conflicts of interest that run rampant through our superannuation industry.

How was it that he, as chairman of the board of trustees — a body appointed to look after the interests of clients — had to simply accept the fees being charged by AMP, that he could not simply threaten to take client money elsewhere?

The answer is that the trustees effectively have no power. They are appointed by the money manager. And so, while their legal obligation is to act in the client's best interest, in reality they are unable to demand better service or lower fees from managers within the group.

Mr Allert was forced to admit he was unaware most of the fees and charges AMP was charging the funds he oversaw were not documented.

If there is one area that commissioner Kenneth Hayne is likely to recommend be overhauled it is this: that superannuation fund trustees be truly independent and have no links, commercially or otherwise, with the management firm.

Crime and punishment

Each time it has been uttered during the hearings, there has been a collective gasp, a sense of bewilderment and quiet rage from those within the industry.

As anyone who's been on the receiving end of a jail sentence will tell you, it doesn't take much to overstep the law, particularly when the boundaries have been stretched and bent for so many years.

Amongst those in the industry, it is referred to as "fees for no service". In the press, the word "scandal" is attached. Within the royal commission, however, it has become increasingly clear that it is regarded as theft.

"Did you think yourself that taking money to which there was no entitlement raised a question of the criminal law?" Mr Hayne asked Nicole Smith, the head of the trustee body for National Australia Bank's superannuation funds, a fortnight ago.

"I didn't," she replied.

The extent of the theft is staggering. Just a few months ago, AMP and the big four banks confessed they had charged fees for no service to the tune of around $220 million. The AMP had owned up to a little over $4 million.

Suddenly, under investigation, they have now discovered it was far worse. The AMP last month announced it was putting aside $290 million to cover "restitution" for clients who were charged for services that were never provided.

On Friday, Australian Securities and Investments Commission deputy Peter Kell told the hearing that it was likely as much as $1 billion had been siphoned out of superannuation accounts by the AMP and the big four banks in this manner.

Mr Kell said despite more than a decade of investigations, no-one had ever been charged and no institution had ever faced civil proceedings. ( Supplied: Royal Commission )

This was no mere oversight. It was not the result of a computer glitch or system overhaul that went horribly wrong. That it has taken place in every major financial institution on a grand scale over an extended period suggests that it has become standard industry practice.

That cash has flowed through to bank profits and plumped up the bonus payments for senior executives for years.

How has this happened? Treasurer Scott Morrison may talk about the need for a "tough cop on the beat" but there has been little evidence of that to date.

Mr Kell told the hearing that, despite more than a decade of investigations into the matter, no-one had ever been charged and no institution had ever faced civil proceedings.

"So far, we've had enforceable undertakings, bannings and the licence condition," he said.

"There is a very high likelihood of [criminal] proceedings commencing in the near future."

The banking regulator has been just as ineffective. Under questioning last week, APRA deputy Helen Rowell admitted the body had taken legal action just once since 2008.

Like ASIC, Ms Rowell argued enforceable undertakings were more cost efficient than going to court, although she admitted that, unlike ASIC, the banking regulator hadn't used even that weapon in a decade.

Which begs the question: Why?