In a courtroom drama that has captured the attention of the corporate and financial world, former ANZ global trading head Etienne Alexiou has been grilled over a series of offensive

and inappropriate text messages sent to colleagues—a controversy that the bank claims justified his dismissal. Alexiou, who once occupied one of the most powerful trading roles at ANZ,

is now at the center of a decade-long legal battle. His unfair dismissal case against the Big Four bank began in earnest this week, more than ten years after he was sacked as Global Head of Balance Sheet Trading in 2015.

At the heart of the case is a stark clash of narratives. Alexiou alleges he was fired after blowing the whistle on trading misconduct within ANZ, pointing to the bank’s internal handling of the bank bill swap rate (BBSW) scandal, which ultimately cost the institution a reported $50 million in penalties. Meanwhile, ANZ contends that his dismissal was warranted due to a series of messages that crossed professional and ethical boundaries, painting a picture of behavior inconsistent with corporate expectations.

Offensive messages under the spotlight

In Federal Court on Monday, Alexiou faced intense questioning from ANZ’s legal counsel, Kate Morgan SC, regarding a series of communications described as “offensive” and “inappropriate”. The Australian reports that several of these messages, now a focal point of the trial, reveal conduct that ranged from crude humor to highly personal remarks about colleagues and public figures.

One such message, according to court testimony, involved Alexiou boasting about an encounter with a Home and Away star when a colleague asked about the “oldest bird you have shagged.” When confronted by Morgan about the offensive nature of his remark, Alexiou conceded, responding, “Yes.”

Other exchanges included jokes about asking his family GP for Viagra to use outside of his marriage. When questioned about the remarks, Alexiou admitted that discussing his wife in that context was worse than offensive. These revelations illustrate the fine line between workplace banter and conduct deemed unprofessional or harmful.

Alexiou defended some of the messages as satirical, claiming they caricatured the stereotypical behavior of high-powered bankers. One particularly colorful text involved a complaint about swigging Dom Pérignon champagne at strip clubs, an anecdote intended to highlight excess in banking culture. Still, Alexiou admitted that many of his texts were “inappropriate” and “offensive”, underscoring the complexity of the case.

A decade-long legal battle

Alexiou, who now serves as a director at private equity firm Belay Capital, has been entangled in legal proceedings with ANZ for nearly a decade. His case has long been anticipated to shed light on the bank’s handling of internal misconduct, particularly the BBSW manipulation that drew scrutiny from regulators.

Alexiou claims he faced retaliation for exposing traders’ misconduct between 2011 and 2012, during which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) launched an investigation into BBSW rate-rigging. ANZ ultimately settled with ASIC for a reported $50 million and committed to legally binding reforms. Alexiou argues that his whistleblowing was the true trigger for his dismissal—a narrative that raises questions about corporate accountability, governance, and the treatment of whistleblowers in high-stakes finance.

Previous warnings and conduct issues

The court also heard details of Alexiou’s prior disciplinary matters. In December 2013, he admitted to receiving a verbal warning after kissing another employee at a client function, an incident described as “inappropriate behavior.” Alexiou further acknowledged that he had not fully read ANZ’s code of conduct policies, a point that has added complexity to the defense’s argument.

Throughout the proceedings, Alexiou firmly denied misleading ASIC during the BBSW investigation, emphasizing that his communications with the regulator were transparent. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of his whistleblowing claims with the offensive messages forms a central tension in the case, challenging the court to consider professional accountability, workplace culture, and retaliation claims simultaneously.

A challenging time for ANZ

Alexiou’s legal battle arrives at a sensitive moment for ANZ. Just weeks before the case began, the bank faced a record $240 million fine for widespread misconduct, affecting nearly 650,000 customers. The fine, stemming from false or misleading statements regarding savings interest rates and a failure to respond to hundreds of hardship notices, has drawn criticism from regulators and customers alike.

ASIC chair Joe Longo described the fine as evidence of an “unacceptable disregard” for customer trust, highlighting systemic issues that have undermined confidence in Australia’s banking sector. Within this context, Alexiou’s claims and the bank’s defense over workplace messages amplify public scrutiny of ANZ’s corporate culture, raising broader questions about ethics, oversight, and leadership.

The human and cultural implications

While the case focuses on Alexiou’s dismissal and the offensive messages, it also reveals the intense pressure and high-octane culture of investment banking, where aggressive behavior, internal politics, and personal excess can collide. Alexiou’s satirical justification of some messages as reflecting banker stereotypes invites debate about the distinction between humor, critique, and misconduct in professional settings.

Moreover, the case highlights the vulnerability of whistleblowers in large organizations. Alexiou’s decade-long legal battle underscores the personal and professional cost of raising concerns, as well as the challenges whistleblowers face when corporate priorities and reputational risk collide.

What’s next?

The unfair dismissal trial is expected to run for six weeks, offering a detailed examination of Alexiou’s claims, the offensive messages, and ANZ’s rationale for termination. Legal analysts suggest that the proceedings could have wider implications for corporate Australia, particularly around whistleblower protections, workplace culture, and the responsibilities of senior executives.

Daily Mail has contacted both Alexiou and ANZ for comment, but the case continues to unfold as one of the most closely watched corporate trials of the year. For observers, the courtroom drama is more than a dispute over messages—it is a window into the pressures, misconduct, and ethical dilemmas faced by those at the highest levels of banking.

As the trial progresses, the eyes of the financial world, media, and public remain fixed on the courtroom. Will Alexiou succeed in proving that his dismissal was retaliation for whistleblowing, or will ANZ demonstrate that his messages and conduct justified the termination? The outcome promises to shape perceptions of corporate governance, accountability, and justice in Australia’s banking sector for years to come.