Section 40 (b) states that a guilty person will be liable "on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £500,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years". This is a substantial amount — 15 years in the clink would cause anybody to pause for thought. However, in the previous paragraph covering summary convictions, the fine is £1,000 and the prison term cannot exceed 12 months. There seems to be a certain disparity between these two. I know there is a difference between a summary and an indictable offence but can the Minister comment on this? I can see that paragraph (b) would cause people to be more careful. However, does paragraph (a) seem unduly lenient in view of the substantial fines and imprisonment in paragraph (b)?
Investment Limited Partnerships Bill, 1994: Committee and Final Stages.
These limits are a great increase on existing financial legislation, and rightly so. The distinction between summary conviction and conviction on indictment is standard in almost all legislation. There are fixed limits which concerns the court where one is charged. It is not possible to have higher figures on summary conviction than these because they are legally set as applying to the lower courts, whereas conviction on indictment is obviously a High Court procedure. Obviously, they both relate to criminal acts.
I accept the Minister's statement. I was aware the limitations, especially in paragraph (a), were set because of the limits on the court. Any criminal activity in this area will have a greater impact than its immediate effects. It could destroy the whole perception of the Irish financial services. I realise the Minister's hands are tied. The lower courts do have limitations in this regard. Could we consider making special arrangements at some future stage where the punishment, both on summary and indictable offences, could fit the crime? The Minister more than adequately covers this in paragraph (b). Somebody who operates criminally in this area deserves to be locked up. They will imperil the livelihoods of thousands of people. Because of the limitations of our judicial system, paragraph (a) seems, on the surface, to specify rather more lenient punishment. Other Senators have referred to these concerns to ensure everything in this section is clean and that anybody who steps out of line is shown to be visited with the full opprobrium of the law.
Section 40 (b) of the Bill would only apply in the most serious cases. A report would be made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would decide whether to take the charge. Once the DPP is involved, it is a serious criminal charge. If there is a conviction, one would then be talking about a fine of £500,000 or 15 years in prison.
In section 40 (a), only the District Court will be involved. This will apply to a minor offence, where it was not felt necessary for the DPP to take a charge and was dealt with more by way of administration than by direct involvement of the DPP. The 1852 Act will not help the Senator.
I thank the Senators for their contributions on the Bill.