S
Sylvia Else
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** Any deliberate criminal act.
So not relevant to this thread, then.
Sylvia.
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** Any deliberate criminal act.
So not relevant to this thread, then.
Sylvia said:So not relevant to this thread, then.
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** Do you have a point to make ?
If so, then FUCKING post it !!!!!!!!!!!
You ANAL fucking BITCH !!
You originally claimed that the director can be made personally liable. So
far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and your comment about
there being no law that protects directors from their own criminal act has
no relevance.
You're being mischievous, Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** You have not posted anything to back up that assertion.
Time to do so.
You're being mischievous,
A bit, it's true.
Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.
He's actually being a bit cagey. I think he realises he's on shaky
ground, but isn't sure why, and is hoping that I'll reveal all before he
makes an even more embarassing blunder.
Sylvia.
Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.
The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html
Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.
"Phil Allison"
Directors can be liable for behaving as though their company is solvent
when in fact it isn't. But I don't this extends to "illegal acts" of the
company.
As Sylvia says, cite the law.
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.
------------------------------------------------------
"Jon"
** Bullshit.
** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.
If you think there is one - cite it.
In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal calls
to be made.
So she is liable to pay the fine.
---------------------------------------
** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to penalty.
The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that illegal
thing.
Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the penalty.
That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal
liability.
Hence my ORIGINAL comment :
" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."
.... Phil
To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they
are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth.
Phil Allison said:** Wrong.
The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.
The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.
If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!
So it stands as not opposed.
** Wrong.
The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.
The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.
If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.
I say she has none.
Tax debts can be recovered from the directors but this is not a tax debt.
Also, if a company trades while insolvent then the directors can be held
liable for any subsequent debts. But the case in point is none of these
things.
"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted
injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making
certain telemarketing calls."
So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director.
Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if
Phil Allison said:** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!
So it stands as not opposed.
The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.
The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.
If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.
Debt proceedings cannot be initiated against the sole director if the
debts are owed by the company. The case would be struck out due to a
wrongly named defendant.
You don't get it. Directors can only be held liable in certain
situations:
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** Stale news.
The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is
about to be struck off.
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1
** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA.
** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!
So it stands as not opposed.
The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.
The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.
If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.
I say she has none.
What do you say is her defence?
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"
** Stale news.
The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is
about to be struck off.
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1
** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA.
** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!
So it stands as not opposed.
The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.
The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.
If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.
I say she has none.
What do you say is her defence?