Individual Fines Should Not Be Imposed

375) and by using this hedonistic calculus people will refrain from committing crimes. This concept focuses on the punishment fitting the criminal and on preventing future crimes from occurring. The three most important factors in effectively deterring a criminal from further crimes are the severity of the punishment, the certainty of the punishment, and the swiftness of the punishment. If criminal doesn’t believe he will be punished or he feels the punishment is minor in comparison to the crime or if the punishment is not swift enough, then he/she will not be deterred from committing crimes. Studies on the effectiveness of deterrence have shown to be inconclusive. The deficient areas of deterrence are crimes committed in the heat of passions, crimes committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and the massive backlog of cases in the nation’s courts (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008).

Secondly, these individuals or organizations truly believe they will accomplish their illicit act(s) and not get caught. Finally, all too often, individuals or people belong to organizations committing white-collar crimes try and keep up with their lifestyle, don’t want to be viewed as a failure, or have a propensity toward low self-control or complete control. Sadly, often they usually only have to pay a fine and the people involved are rarely prosecuted. And if they are arrested, they don’t receive lengthly sentences. In addition, people engaged in white-collar crime fly under the radar often-negotiating plea deals; therefore, the public’s interests in these crimes are short lived. If white-collar crimes made there way to the mainstream media as much as violent crimes, and the news media followed-up on the damage these crimes caused to their victims, legislators might be compelled by their constituents to amend the sentencing guidelines making the consequences for these criminals a lot more

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

They are liable of facing the civil penalties as mentioned in part 9B of corporation act 2001. The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) is the national body responsible for company registration and securities regulation in Australia. Under section 1317J(1) of the Corporations Act, ASIC can apply to the court for disqualifying the directors from managing corporations. Under section 206C of corporate act 2001, court possess a power to disqualify a person from managing affirm for a contravention of a civil penalty provision.

The question before our society is not whether corporate crime is a victimless crime, rather the question is what should be done about it? Corporate crime doesn’t just do harm to the investors that can be unknowingly damaged by these crimes, it has a much more insidious nature to it as it has done harm on global scales. Corporate crime is almost a misnomer because many of these criminal wrongdoings are for the most part legal, when not taken to their ultimate conclusion. Society within the United States has been taught that the man in the brief case, yelling at other men in dark coats on the flow of the stock exchange are the smartest guys in the room. This paper will attack that idea on many levels, the first salvo will be

    In light of this topic, another portion of the original writing, “...excessive fines” can be discussed. Rather than all acts leading to the same punishment, there are varying levels of severity to each issue. A very common example of this would be tax evasion. (1) Tax evasion essentially means filling out tax forms with knowingly incorrect figures and data. (2) As a direct result of tax evasion, convicted criminals are presented with penalties varying from either 1-5 years in prison or a $100,000 fine maximum. Once again, variables play a tremendous role of importance in this form of punishment. Often times, tax evasion is played off into a fine and while incarceration is still a prevalent issue it is far less more

In addition to the economical problems mandatory minimums contribute to, some adversaries suggest that mandatory minimums may not even be effective, particularly in regards to reducing drug related crimes. In many organized drug operations when one drug supplier is caught and incarcerated another swiftly takes his place (Caulkins, Jonathan P). Furthermore, social scientists and public policy analysts researching the effectiveness of mandatory minimums have found there to be little conclusive evidence that mandatory minimums do in fact reduce crime (The United States Sentencing Commission).

According to the pro and contra Section 203D and 203E of the Corporations Act as above, most judges and scholars agree that the procedure of removal directors as stipulated in the Corporations Act provides fairness treatment for the directors who may be removed. However, they still strongly argue whether the Section 203D is mandatory or not. Moreover, they questioned the existence of Section 203E since it eliminates flexibility for companies to make decision particularly in the emergency situation as explained above. Therefore, in order to provide broader perspectives about the relevancy of Section 203D and Section 203E, it is necessary to compare the procedure of removal directors in the Australian legislation with the

In both developed and underdeveloped economies, there is a need to put regulations which ensure that profits are not abnormally earned at the expense of the innocent clients. It is therefore the mandate of the territorial authorities to put in place measures that introduce checks and balances in all trades. The respective companies or business must also follow the same suit lest they find themselves in the crossroads of law. However,

Whatever the reason for the triple standard between punishing people crime, punishing corporate crime, and punishing government crime, we should start by asking if the U.S. government really cares about non-violent crime. Even though we have very strict regulations on everything from money laundering to banking transparency, banks like Standard Chartered and Barclays have took hits for corporate crimes. Bribery allegations, fines and settlements have hurt businesses such as Siemens, KBR, and Alcatel-Lucent.

The economic impact of organized crime is staggering. “… a look at the economic impact alone gives a glimpse of the importance of this issue. The

From the standpoint of the criminal, the ideal white- collar crime is one that will never be recognized or detected as a criminal act. (Radzinowicz 325-335) Corporate Crime Corporate crime is the type of crime that is engaged in by individuals and groups of individuals who become involved in criminal conspiracies designed to improve the market share or profitability of their corporations. ( Siegel 338) Corporations are legal entities, which can be and are subjected to criminal processes. There is today little restriction on the range of crimes for which corporations may be held responsible, though a corporation cannot be imprisoned. The most controversial issue in regard to the study of corporate crime revolves around the question of whether corporate crime is "really crime." Corporate officials, politicians, and many criminologists object to the criminological study of corporate criminality on the strictest sense of the word. The conventional and strictly legal definition of crime is that it is an act, which violates the criminal law and is thereby punishable by a criminal court. From this perspective a criminal is one who has been convicted in a criminal court. Given these widely accepted notions of crime and criminals, it is argued that what is called corporate crime is not really

Source: Reprinted from The Limits of the Criminal Sanction by Herbert L. Packer, with the permission of the publishers, Stanford University Press. ( 1968 by Herbert L. Packer.

The judicial system supports the behaviors of making an individual a repeat offender. The prosecution process is flawed when punishing criminals for their crimes. White-collar crimes may not appear to be taken as seriously as other crimes, (i.e., murder, rape, armed robbery, etc.) so the jail sentencing will not be as impactful. This action sends the message to criminals that with softer criminal tactics, they will not do hard time. According to the text, “Jail time does not offer amicable solution, because in most times the intended offense is not prosecuted” (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2011).

Penalties under the EEA of 1996 if a person is found guilty can be fined up to $500 thousand and serve 10 years in jail. A company can be fined up to five million but if it serves to benefit, a foreign country or a foreign agent fines are up to $10 million and up to 15 years in jail.