I can understand your viewpoint re the shaming of your adviser.
In law though a sentence following judgement takes in to account both the harm done and the prevention of similar acts in the future, the protection in this case of future investors. The public good needs protection, as well as the punishment of criminal acts.
I still feel gaol is appropriate for many involved in this harm to defenceless investors.
gg
GG,
I take what you're saying onboard, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm not saying that anyone who's found to have done something illegal in all of this shouldn't be punished. More that I don't know what a fitting punishment might be.
MS
Gaol is the only suitable punishment for people who rip off the public for so many billions of dollars, as happened with Storm.
gg
GG,
I take what you're saying onboard, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm not saying that anyone who's found to have done something illegal in all of this shouldn't be punished. More that I don't know what a fitting punishment might be.
MS
Community service might be appropriate.
GG
I'm interested to know if there will be any proven criminality in this saga; fraud, theft, obtaining benefit by deception. If there is let the courts administer the full and appropriate penalties.
S
* two counts of disseminating information on 19 and 20 June 2000 respectively, knowing it was false in a material particular and which was likely to induce the purchase by other persons of shares in HIH contrary to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) .html s 999 ;
* one count of obtaining money by false or misleading statements, contrary to Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) .html s 178BB ; and
* one count of being intentionally dishonest and failing to discharge his duties as a director of HIH in good faith and in the best interests of that company contrary to Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 184(1)(b).
In sentencing Adler, Justice Dunford said:[1]
The offences are serious and display an appalling lack of commercial morality…Directors are not appointed to advance their own interests but to manage the company for the benefit of its shareholders to whom they owe fiduciary duties…They were not stupid errors of judgement but deliberate lies, criminal and in breach of his fiduciary duties to HIH as a director.
Long sentences in some of the less well monitored wings of our prisons would prevent a recurrence of this generational fraud on an unsuspecting investing public, many of whom were the least educated and the hardest working of their generation.
It is the only deterrence.
I am told that Larry Adler's lad, Rodney, for all his bravado, is afraid to even jay walk lest he end up in the slammer again. And he did soft time for his criminality in the HIH affair.
Those of the banking and advice industry should bear in mind young Adler's fate. I quote from Justice Durnford's remarks on his sentencing in 2005, via wikipedia.
I would be practising my shower etiquette if I had been involved.
gg
GG
Never drop the soap ...
S
No mate, in the Creek, you never bend to pick it up.
That is what I meant by etiquette. I run courses for the guilty pre-sentence at $10,000 a pop.
gg
Wonder about the silence of John Gibbs, John Buchanan and Andrew Symons who reportedly lost millions?
???????
Sorry, what exactly does this post "???????" mean?
If you're referring to your own previous post, doesn't the fact that no one's answered that post tell you that anyone who's reading this thread can't, won't or don't want to answer your initial question?
I for one have no idea who the people you mentioned in that earlier post are. Sorry
MS
MS
Some light reading that may add clarity to jjtebj12's post.
S
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eye-of-the-storm/story-e6frep2o-1225945522770
MS
Some light reading that may add clarity to jjtebj12's post.
S
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eye-of-the-storm/story-e6frep2o-1225945522770
So would it be fair to say that there are three groups of litigants on the Investor side.
1. Manny and the sixty investors.
2. Slater and Gordon investors
3. Levitts investors
If so, are they separate from each other in their aims?
Do they crossover in any way?
gg
MS
Some light reading that may add clarity to jjtebj12's post.
S
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...eye-of-the-storm/story-e6frep2o-1225945522770
So would it be fair to say that there are three groups of litigants on the Investor side.
1. Manny and the sixty investors.
2. Slater and Gordon investors
3. Levitts investors
If so, are they separate from each other in their aims?
Do they crossover in any way?
gg
Hi GG,
I would be interested to know who these 60 investors are and whether some of them are wearing two hats? Anyone in Manny's camp cannot be in ours as well! One cannot sleep with the enemy and return to our camp when it suits them!
It is all truly very complicated Frank.
I trust that you will recover your investment and go on to enjoy life again.
How does one buy your book?
gg
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?