The author through this paper submission is intending to chip in the thought process and intricacies of the much anticipated and proposed ‘Fraud Act’ to curb the modern white collar crimes sprouting in the society.
1.The sky high powers of the executive engrossed with the wisdom of the legislature and the magnanimity of judicial interpretations has often succumbed, suffered, scoffed, struggled to engrave and embalm within its finger fold the proactive and protective mechanism which has been made a Cinderella affair to deal and tackle menaces arising out of popularly titled white collar crimes, that have developed as a malignancy to constrict and choke the financial growth and economical development of our country.
2. The recent trend in this scenario shows, that people are lured with plump returns in the investments they make, which are often dishonoured and rendered nugatory to be enforced by the deception played by the promisor who by their diabolic attitude skim away from the liability fixed under the penal statutes for want of prosecution, lack of thorough and improved judicial process to collect , receive and analyze the evidence, absence of effective remedial measures to redress the concern and to redeem the loss suffered by the innocent investors at the vicious plot hatched by the devils of financial dereliction and deprivation.
3. The possible criticism, that could be deciphered is that there are too many specific fraud offences, agglutinized to the consequence it shall attract rendering it impossible to churn of the wheat from the chaff the aspects relating to identity of the offence to be charged and thus in totality rendering the chances of conviction a puerile affair.
4.The system has been smothered by complexity in the trauma of affairs paving way for the sinners of humanity who take a serendipitous gain through skulduggery tactics to manage to go scot free for a song as a sulky perignator on a perennial basis leading to depletion of the conundrums of financial security causing serious havoc and cacophony in the financial stability of our economy. The cat and mouse game should be done away with the punctilious attitude and precision displayed by an eagle that flies high but captures the surface below in a filmed manner with undisputed clarity and vision to achieve the objective that has been focussed.
5. A currorial attitude in this regard, to tide the waves of ambiguity would be in the pedestal of taking a lover’s stroll on a mine field. What is prudent and expected is a rhythmic and seasonal analysis of the modifications in the texture and composure of the society involving modulations in behavioural aspects, life style, and quests for newer ventures in a cryptographic manner on a timely and orderly basis in surge with the advancement of perennial happenings across the globe.
6. The roses are red and the violets are blue so the sagacious responsibility on the state is by not done seldom by winnowing the legislative enactments with proper prudence and diligence with a vision of common benefit to the society at large but also ensuring its effective implementation and enforcements on a concrete foundation. The Herculaneous task vested on the state in framing the proposed legislation can be tracked to the following aspects
7. Identify the offence:-The offence should be broadly defined and categorised under the new act. It shouldn’t bear the ghost of its principles derived from the erstwhile legislations (i.e. Indian Penal Code, Indian Contract Act.
etc). The following would be the criteria to attract an offence under the new law
“A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation”
A)’Interview with Ros wright’ dated July 2007.
B) ‘Report on post legislative assessment of the Fraud Act 2006’,Memorandum to the Justice Selection Committee, Presented to the Parliament of U.K by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by command of Her Majesty, dated June 2012.
C)Article published in Amicus Curiae Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies, Issue 75, Autumn 2008.
D)Fraud Act 2006, United Kingdom.
Nikhil Shankar is an Advocate at High Court of Kerala. email@example.com