> There are no "monetary payments to deter future crime" in Australian civil law.
I might be missing something but it seems like a good idea that a civil court is unable to punish people after deciding it is necessary to encourage them not to break a criminal law in future.
Australia does presumably have punitive fines and other punishments that are for deterrence in criminal punishments?
> I might be missing something but it seems like a good idea that a civil court is unable to punish people after deciding it is necessary to encourage them not to break a criminal law in future.
If I can steal $5 from you, and the worst thing that happens if I get caught is that I have to give the $5 back, what sort of incentive do you think that creates?
> If I can steal $5 from you, and the worst thing that happens if I get caught is that I have to give the $5 back, what sort of incentive do you think that creates?
Theft is a criminal matter, and there are punitive remedies for crimes.
It's the same concept. If a corporation commits a civil crime, the maximum in damages it can repay is the amount of damage it caused, give or take interest.
> It's the same concept. If a corporation commits a civil crime, the maximum in damages it can repay is the amount of damage it caused, give or take interest.
It sounds like you're just making that up. I found the agency and the page on the regulation being breached:
The maximum penalties per breach of the ACL including unconscionable conduct, making false or misleading representations, and supplying consumer goods or certain services that do not comply with safety standards or which are banned:
For corporations, will be the greater of:
* $10,000,000*
* 3 times the value of the benefit received, or
* 10% of annual turnover in preceding 12 months, if court cannot determine benefit obtained from the offence.
The penalty for this particular "civil crime" (if that is actually what it's called), does not talk about repaying damages at all, and it can be 3 times the value of the benefit.
So what's the basis for what your seemingly contradictory claims?
> None of these things can practically happen to a corporation.
But the corporation didn't break a criminal law like the person in this example.
> But maybe you're on to something, here - perhaps they should.
Directors and executives can absolutely get convicted of crimes relating to their operation and oversight of the company. Whether the laws and investigating agencies have as much power as they should is very debatable but the legal framework is there.
I might be missing something but it seems like a good idea that a civil court is unable to punish people after deciding it is necessary to encourage them not to break a criminal law in future.
Australia does presumably have punitive fines and other punishments that are for deterrence in criminal punishments?