Pound of Flesh?

[Buddy]

I just see that Nuttal has got 7 years for receiving secret commissions, corruption and all that. I don’t really have any comment on the case itself but....I see that some in "guvmt" are saying they will sell his house to recover the cash. I suppose that is OK under "the law" (proceeds of crime, etc) but I wonder if they will donate it to a charity or something. Otherwise are "they" not guilty of the same thing (except that it's not secret)?

And more importantly, some in guvmnt are suggesting taking away his superannuation. Now this is the one that I question. Is that not double punishment and taking a pound of flesh? Seems to me that the two are quite unrelated. OK, he may have committed a crime but what's his superannuation got to do with that. I mean if they want to take his super, why not go the whole hog and recover all the salary and allowances that was paid to him? Seems a bit over the top to me.

Anyone in "public life" that commits a crime, especially involving money, is dealt with very strongly, whilst those (seemingly) that commit violent crimes, more often than not, get dealt with relatively leniently.

Just an observation

 

[Julia]

Buddy I had the same thought about the money.
It was given to him by Ken Talbot and one other bloke.
So when the government says they will attempt to recoup the money, do they intend to pay it back to the people who supplied it, or keep it themselves?

Imo there's no way the government is entitled to this money.

Re the Super, I guess that's a legal question. If it was earned (which it was) from taxpayer contributions and during a time when he was behaving corruptly, then I can see that he should have to forfeit it.

Don't feel the same about his house though. That should remain with his family and be there for when he gets out.

I know we have to be tough on corruption but I can't feeling a bit sorry for Nuttall (idjit though he is) because I really don't believe he thinks he did anything wrong. And to some extent, that's reasonable, because unless I've missed it, no one has actually pointed out any specific favours he did for the people who gave him the cash.
Stand to be corrected on this, though.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I just see that Nuttal has got 7 years for receiving secret commissions, corruption and all that. I don’t really have any comment on the case itself but....I see that some in "guvmt" are saying they will sell his house to recover the cash. I suppose that is OK under "the law" (proceeds of crime, etc) but I wonder if they will donate it to a charity or something. Otherwise are "they" not guilty of the same thing (except that it's not secret)?

And more importantly, some in guvmnt are suggesting taking away his superannuation. Now this is the one that I question. Is that not double punishment and taking a pound of flesh? Seems to me that the two are quite unrelated. OK, he may have committed a crime but what's his superannuation got to do with that. I mean if they want to take his super, why not go the whole hog and recover all the salary and allowances that was paid to him? Seems a bit over the top to me.

Anyone in "public life" that commits a crime, especially involving money, is dealt with very strongly, whilst those (seemingly) that commit violent crimes, more often than not, get dealt with relatively leniently.

Just an observation

Buddy I had the same thought about the money.
It was given to him by Ken Talbot and one other bloke.
So when the government says they will attempt to recoup the money, do they intend to pay it back to the people who supplied it, or keep it themselves?

Imo there's no way the government is entitled to this money.

Re the Super, I guess that's a legal question. If it was earned (which it was) from taxpayer contributions and during a time when he was behaving corruptly, then I can see that he should have to forfeit it.

Don't feel the same about his house though. That should remain with his family and be there for when he gets out.

I know we have to be tough on corruption but I can't feeling a bit sorry for Nuttall (idjit though he is) because I really don't believe he thinks he did anything wrong. And to some extent, that's reasonable, because unless I've missed it, no one has actually pointed out any specific favours he did for the people who gave him the cash.
Stand to be corrected on this, though.

The super and perks are fairly generous.

If I were a member of parliament I would consider it such an honour , that money would not come in to it.

I reckon they should take him and his family for as much as they can get.

It undermines trust in the parliament.

He, his children and descendents need to be punished for any profit they made from this obscene abuse of trust, not for anything else, mind you.

gg

 

[awg]

And more importantly, some in guvmnt are suggesting taking away his superannuation. Now this is the one that I question.

There are regulations that govern Public Sector superannuation.

No doubt they vary somewhat in various different schemes.

I am aware of at least two in which it is mandated that if you are convicted of a criminal offence relating to your work, then the publicly funded component will be forfeit.

Tough, but reasonable IMO

If public servants decide to criminally stick their snouts in the trough, why should the taxpayer fund their extremely generous super?

It was always made abundantly clear to me when I was a Pubic servant, that in the event of a fraudulent act of public monies being committed, the book would be thrown at you, including being arrested at your desk in full view, the maximum penaltly being sought, and loss of super.

The dude was corrupt and he knew it full well.

re his properties, I imagine they are talking "proceeds of crime" recovery

 

[Sunder]

Shouldn't the other guys also be charged with offering a bribe? I understand that's a criminal offense as well as receiving one.

 

[awg]

Shouldn't the other guys also be charged with offering a bribe? I understand that's a criminal offense as well as receiving one.

They are charged, and must be sh!ting bricks atm

As per my previous post, the goalposts are slightly different for persons who are not public servants.

I believe both individuals charged are each worth multi-hundred millions

 

[Happy]

There are regulations that govern Public Sector superannuation.

No doubt they vary somewhat in various different schemes.

I am aware of at least two in which it is mandated that if you are convicted of a criminal offence relating to your work, then the publicly funded component will be forfeit.
Tough, but reasonable IMO

If public servants decide to criminally stick their snouts in the trough, why should the taxpayer fund their extremely generous super?

It was always made abundantly clear to me when I was a Pubic servant, that in the event of a fraudulent act of public monies being committed, the book would be thrown at you, including being arrested at your desk in full view, the maximum penaltly being sought, and loss of super.

The dude was corrupt and he knew it full well.

re his properties, I imagine they are talking "proceeds of crime" recovery

There is always pension avaiable to general public, so he would be OK, maybe would have to change some spending habits.

 

[Sunder]

There is always pension avaiable to general public, so he would be OK, maybe would have to change some spending habits.

Won't be able to provide houses for his kids on a general pension.

 

[donteventryit]

There are regulations that govern Public Sector superannuation.

No doubt they vary somewhat in various different schemes.

I am aware of at least two in which it is mandated that if you are convicted of a criminal offence relating to your work, then the publicly funded component will be forfeit.

Tough, but reasonable IMO

If public servants decide to criminally stick their snouts in the trough, why should the taxpayer fund their extremely generous super?

It was always made abundantly clear to me when I was a Pubic servant, that in the event of a fraudulent act of public monies being committed, the book would be thrown at you, including being arrested at your desk in full view, the maximum penaltly being sought, and loss of super.

The dude was corrupt and he knew it full well.

On a related note:

QUEENSLAND'S embattled police commissioner has revealed that six police who resigned while facing disciplinary action over the "Dangerous Liaisons" corruption scandal walked away with retirement benefits including superannuation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25823501-601,00.html

Why can't we go after their retirement benefits?

Also, the journo gets creative:

Some of the 25 alleged miscreants returned to active duty after being dealt with through the police service's internal processes, the commissioner said.

miscreant   [mis-kree-uhnt]
–adjective
1. depraved, villainous, or base.
2. Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.

–noun
3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.
4. Archaic. a heretic or infidel.

 

[awg]

On a related note:

QUEENSLAND'S embattled police commissioner has revealed that six police who resigned while facing disciplinary action over the "Dangerous Liaisons" corruption scandal walked away with retirement benefits including superannuation.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25823501-601,00.html

Why can't we go after their retirement benefits?

The way it works is like this:

In the case of situations were some wrongdoing has been committed, but either it is not serious enough for criminal charges;

conviction would be doubtful;

the employer has lost confidence in the employee;

they want it swept under the carpet;

What is done is offer the alternative to walk away, with super intact, or face the other prospects.

I saw this happen on a few occasions.

 

[bassmanpete]

I'm with GG on this; anyone in a position of power/trust (eg, police officer, politician, local councillor, customs officer, judge, etc.) who abuses that power/trust should have the book thrown at him/her and be taken for every cent that can be got.

Trouble is, it's some of these same people who are in a position to decide what happens to whom; and, more often than not, it's the whistle blower who gets shafted! The problem being that those in power are thinking "If this guy goes down, what's he going to say about us? Better that the whistle blower gets the hard time. We can spin our way out of that."

I'm nearly 65; I started out pretty cynical and the older I get the more cynical I get