Clik here to view.
BFCSA bothered to take three weeks intense work and send in SUBMISSION # 23 the Senate Inquiry into Penalties
for White Collar Crime March 2016
To our knowledge no victims were called as witnesses, no hearings took place.
Yet committee led by Williams? looked through the subs and concluded we are happy with penalties the way they are!!!!!!
They reported as such:
4.36 The Banking & Finance Consumers Support Association (BFCSA) pointed to the Icelandic example of prosecuting and, in many cases, imprisoning executive officers of banks and financial institutions in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (GFC). According to the BFCSA, the use of custodial sentences in Iceland has served as a powerful deterrent to would-be white-collar criminals in the Icelandic banking sector. The BFCSA submitted that a similar 'zero tolerance' approach, and the use of 'tough penalties' (along with improved enforcement and a better understanding of predatory lending, mortgage fraud and other 'control frauds'), should apply in Australia.30 The BFCSA argued, on behalf of its members, for:
…heavy custodial sentences as strong deterrents for the future. We collectively seek the most appropriate penalties to match the magnitude of damage to people's lives, the homelessness, and the stress of financial loss. It is time to get serious for the sake of future generations in terms of housing and general financial stability.31
4.37 More specifically, and addressing what it suggested was criminal activity on the part of lenders and other participants in the banking and financial sector, the BFCSA submitted:
In the public interest and with the clear intention to stop these activities, we believe 25 years with a non-parole period is a fair sentence and a significant deterrent. Given the magnitude of the criminal intent, the Cartel activity and, the staggering loss of homes, which will continue well into the future, after the last Low Doc Mortgage is sold and signed up, no lesser sentence is adequate.
BFCSA Members also recommend 20 years with a non-parole period for regulatory executives found guilty of criminal neglect.32
Page 62
Committee view
4.64 The committee acknowledges the concerns of some inquiry participants, and in particular of victims of white-collar crime and their advocates, that maximum prison terms for white-collar offences should be increased. However, the committee is satisfied that the maximum prison terms available in Australia are comparable to those available in similar foreign jurisdictions. While the committee does not preclude the possibility that maximum terms of imprisonment for certain offences should be increased, broadly speaking the committee considers current maximum terms of imprisonment for white-collar crime to be appropriate.