R v Smith and Palk [1997] 2 Cr App R(S) 167 – S 458 CA 1985 – (s 993 CA 2006 and s 9 FA).
- fraudulent trading – sentencing.
1) fraudulent trading covers a wide spectrum between two extremes.
- fraudulent trading resulting in a substantial loss to creditors is generally less serious than a specific theft or fraud to an equivalent amount.
2) lower end criminality where Ds intent was to keep business going rather than to make profit for themselves.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Mackey [2012] EWCA Crim 2205 – S 993 CA 2006 - (s 9 FA) – article 8 ECHR.
- fraudulent trading – sentencing – interests of D’s children. 1) the Sentencing Council Guideline in relation to fraud does not apply to the offence of fraudulent trading. 2) fraudulent trading covers a wide spectrum between two extremes. - fraudulent trading, at the bottom end of the scale, resulting in a substantial loss to creditors is generally less serious than a specific theft or fraud to an equivalent amount. 3) factors relevant to sentence. 4) sentencing court has duty to consider the interests of D’s children. But, rare for children’s interests to prevail over society’s interest in proper enforcement of the criminal law; the more so, the more serious the offence.