Register to read the introduction…
Act honestly responsible to duty
2. Knowing the issue and understand the company issue
3. Solve issue occurred and preventing company from incurring debts
4. The directors are preventing the company from insolvent trading. Corporations Act Part 9.4B provides for two types of penal consequences, civil penalties and criminal penalties. Two kinds of civil penalties are prescribed: a pecuniary penalty of up to $200,000 and/or an order banning a person from managing a corporation for an unspecified period.4 Criminal penalties comprise a fine of up to $200,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.5 Criminal penalties are only imposed where a person contravenes a civil penalty provision knowingly, intentionally or recklessly and the person:
• Was dishonest and intended to gain an advantage for the contravener or any other person
• Intended to deceive or defraud someone.6 The civil and criminal penalty regimes operate as alternate regimes, determined by separate proceedings.
The election to bring criminal or civil penalty proceedings is a crucial one because a civil penalty proceeding precludes later criminal proceedings. Civil penalty proceedings involve a lower evidentiary burden than criminal prosecutions because they are conducted using civil rules of evidence and …show more content…
There is a defense from S588H that Emma is able to use to defend. It is the defense of reasonable reliance on information provided by others directors. Emma has employed a financial employee to do the job of manage and retaining financial records, she thinks that she can rely this job to the finance employee.
Satish
Satish duty is to manage and run the IT business of the company. Therefore, Satish had informed that the IT problems had been solved since he engaged Trouble Shooters Pty. Ltd, the reality is that the technical problems had not been fixed. Satish breached his duty and could lead the company into insolvency.
Ying
Ying as a non-executive director have responsibility to prevent the company insolvency. During board meeting, each director had mentioned that the company is facing IT problems that causing customers dissatisfaction and profits to decline. Ying is known that OHS Solutions is in debt as a director of Support Pty. Ltd. who is a guarantor of a loan from a bank. There is a defense that Ying could use, which is the defense of information provided by
2. Knowing the issue and understand the company issue
3. Solve issue occurred and preventing company from incurring debts
4. The directors are preventing the company from insolvent trading. Corporations Act Part 9.4B provides for two types of penal consequences, civil penalties and criminal penalties. Two kinds of civil penalties are prescribed: a pecuniary penalty of up to $200,000 and/or an order banning a person from managing a corporation for an unspecified period.4 Criminal penalties comprise a fine of up to $200,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.5 Criminal penalties are only imposed where a person contravenes a civil penalty provision knowingly, intentionally or recklessly and the person:
• Was dishonest and intended to gain an advantage for the contravener or any other person
• Intended to deceive or defraud someone.6 The civil and criminal penalty regimes operate as alternate regimes, determined by separate proceedings.
The election to bring criminal or civil penalty proceedings is a crucial one because a civil penalty proceeding precludes later criminal proceedings. Civil penalty proceedings involve a lower evidentiary burden than criminal prosecutions because they are conducted using civil rules of evidence and …show more content…
There is a defense from S588H that Emma is able to use to defend. It is the defense of reasonable reliance on information provided by others directors. Emma has employed a financial employee to do the job of manage and retaining financial records, she thinks that she can rely this job to the finance employee.
Satish
Satish duty is to manage and run the IT business of the company. Therefore, Satish had informed that the IT problems had been solved since he engaged Trouble Shooters Pty. Ltd, the reality is that the technical problems had not been fixed. Satish breached his duty and could lead the company into insolvency.
Ying
Ying as a non-executive director have responsibility to prevent the company insolvency. During board meeting, each director had mentioned that the company is facing IT problems that causing customers dissatisfaction and profits to decline. Ying is known that OHS Solutions is in debt as a director of Support Pty. Ltd. who is a guarantor of a loan from a bank. There is a defense that Ying could use, which is the defense of information provided by