The banking royal commission has heard AMP could face criminal penalties for misleading corporate regulator ASIC.

Key points: Royal commission recommends AMP faces criminal charges for repeatedly misleading ASIC

Royal commission recommends AMP faces criminal charges for repeatedly misleading ASIC CBA also faces charges over multiple breaches of Corporations Act

CBA also faces charges over multiple breaches of Corporations Act ASIC concedes it negotiates rather than prosecutes misconduct cases and has launched only one criminal case in the past decade

Delivering her closing statement, counsel assisting the inquiry Rowena Orr, QC said AMP may have breached the Corporations Act over numerous misleading statements relating to its practice of charging fees for no service.

The inquiry has been told AMP misled ASIC on 20 occasions about a deliberate practice of charging fees to customers who were no longer receiving financial advice.

Ms Orr was speaking as she wrapped up two weeks of evidence drilling into financial advisers.

"Through AMP's dealings with ASIC regarding the extent and nature of its fee-for-no-service conduct, AMP adopted an attitude toward the regulator that was not forthright or honest, and demonstrated a deliberate attempt to mislead," she said.

The potential criminal action centres on efforts by the AMP board to influence a supposedly independent report from lawyers Clayton Utz.

Ms Orr said AMP's characterisation of the Clayton Utz report as external and independent was "at least inaccurate, if not misleading".

"The board of AMP may have approved the changes to the Clayton Utz report before it was submitted to ASIC," she said.

The evidence has already cost AMP chief executive Craig Meller his job.

Ms Orr said it was open to conclude that AMP's conduct in connection to the Clayton Utz report may have breached criminal provisions in the Corporations Act.

She added that AMP had made 20 "misstatements" in 12 communications with ASIC over the fees-for-no-service inquiry.

These too carry criminal penalties and fines of up to $1 million for each breach.

In a brief statement released late in the day, AMP said: "It acknowledged the seriousness of the closing submissions made by counsel assisting the royal commission."

"We are reviewing those submissions closely and will respond fully next week."

CBA, Westpac, NAB also faces multiple charges

The Commonwealth, Westpac and NAB banks could also face the courts over multiple breaches of the Corporations Act.

The CBA faces potential action over charging fees for no service.

The case against Westpac centres on appalling advice provided by a number of its financial planners, while NAB faces more scrutiny on the widespread practice of falsifying customers' signatures on investment documents.

Ms Orr said on the evidence present, it was open to the commissioner to find that the conduct of the CBA, and five of its advice licensees, contravened the Corporations Act by failing to ensure the advice was provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.

"It is also open to the commissioner to find that the conduct in question was attributable to a cultural tolerance on the part of CBA and its advice licensees of risks and conduct that were potentially detrimental to clients, but which were to the financial advantage of CBA through its advice licensees."

The breaches remarkably included instances of CBA continuing to charge clients after they had died.

Ms Orr also invited the commission to make adverse findings against high-profile and NAB-linked financial planner Sam Henderson.

All the banks face charges relating to the failure to take reasonable steps to ensure advisers complied with corporation law.

ASIC concedes it has preferred negotiation to prosecution in the past

Earlier the regulator told the commission that it could take years to ban an adviser guilty of misconduct.

ASIC said it relied on negotiation with financial planning licensees to secure any penalty.

Despite mounting evidence of an industry rife with misconduct, ASIC has only pursued one criminal proceeding in the past 10 years, and has not issued any civil penalty orders against licensees since 2013.

Senior executive leader of ASIC's financial advisers team Louise Macauley told the commission that limited resources and difficulties with existing laws made it hard to achieve acceptable outcomes.

Sorry, this video has expired ASIC acknowledges reporting system inadequate

Ms Orr said it could take two to three years from the time ASIC was notified of misconduct to enforce a ban on a licensee or adviser.

"Given the purpose of a ban is to protect the public, but it can a take couple of years [to enforce it], is that acceptable?" Ms Orr asked Ms Macauley.

"No, it's not," Ms Macauley said.

Evidence presented to the commission found ASIC relied more on negotiation with licensees than taking direct action and using courts for "public denunciation".

Certainly evidence tabled in the hearing does not point to ASIC being hasty launch prosecutions.

ASIC has never prosecuted anyone for failing to report a breach within the current 10-day limit, given high evidentiary standards needed and to give licensees more time to investigate the breaches

ASIC has never prosecuted anyone for failing to report a breach within the current 10-day limit, given high evidentiary standards needed and to give licensees more time to investigate the breaches ASIC has not instigated one civil penalty order in the past five years

ASIC has not instigated one civil penalty order in the past five years ASIC has only succeeded in getting two licence suspensions and two licence cancellations since 2013

ASIC has only succeeded in getting two licence suspensions and two licence cancellations since 2013 ASIC has launched one criminal case in the past 10 years

ASIC has launched one criminal case in the past 10 years ASIC has launched six civil penalty cases against licensees since 2013, when new legislation came into force allowing this course of action

ASIC has launched six civil penalty cases against licensees since 2013, when new legislation came into force allowing this course of action Since 2008 ASIC has issued 229 bans against financial planners, 46 per cent have been permanent.

Ms Macauley said any criminal action would most likely be taken against individuals rather than companies, as the action against companies would generally take up to three years and just result in a fine.

"We weigh up the various avenues we have and the deterrent impact they can have," she said.