Veronique Ingram/ Adam Toma IGPS 6

Clearly in most cases ITSA fails to refer most offences of any nature to the prosecution. When Adam Toma refers to cases ITSA has prosecuted and the offence is very minor or only involves $3,000 this is a result of a number of offences falling under jurisdictions of other agencies.
Adama Toma is only wanking his cock in attempting to misconstrue the nature in whole of the courts decisions.

INSPECTOR-GENERAL PRACTICE STATEMENT 6

REFERRAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 (RASH AND HAZARDOUS GAMBLING)

Policy statement

Updated 21 January 2013

If you have any comments, suggestions or queries on a matter referred to in this Practice Statement, please contact us on 1300 364 785 or at regulation@itsa.gov.au or by mail addressed to:

Practice Manager – Regulation

Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia

PO Box 10443

Adelaide Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000 Inspector-General Practice Statement 6 – Referral of offences under section 271 (rash and hazardous gambling) 2

CONTENTS

1.PURPOSE3

2.GUIDELINES3

3.REFERRAL PROCESS4

Inspector-General Practice Statement 6 – Referral of offences under section 271 (rash and hazardous gambling) 3

1. PURPOSE

1.1. The purpose of this Practice Statement is to explain how the Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia ("ITSA") makes a decision whether or not to refer for prosecution a possible offence under section 271 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (rash and hazardous gambling1 leading to insolvency).

1 Note that section 271 also applies to speculations – that conduct is not considered in this policy statement which is limited to offences related to gambling.

1.2. This policy does not represent a rigid set of rules designed to apply to all situations regardless of the individual circumstances. Instead, it is intended to provide ITSA Officers and ITSA’s stakeholders with flexible guidelines that will allow them to approach each case on its merits.

1.3. This policy deals only with decisions by ITSA regarding the referral of possible offences and does not deal at all with any decisions made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("CDPP") regarding whether or not to prosecute.

2. GUIDELINES

2.1. ITSA will not refer a case for prosecution where it appears that the debtor could be classified as having been a "problem gambler" and had not engaged in any associated criminal activity to finance their gambling habit.

2.2. ITSA will consider referring a case to the CDPP only where it involves:

 clear criminality

 complex offences

 ongoing allegations of repeat offending despite warnings to the contrary.

2.3. This policy reflects the principle that the public interest is not generally served by prosecuting minor incursions or by prosecuting persons who are suffering from a particular vulnerability or disadvantage. The purpose of section 271 is to punish "…onduct which a person can be expected to anticipate seriously risks insolvency… where the character of the gambling was "reckless" and "without due consideration or regard for consequences". ITSA does not regard cases involving "problem gambling" only as having these characteristics.

2.4. An example of a case involving "clear criminality" would be where the person gambled with the intention of depriving creditors of access to their money and property. For example, there may be evidence that, upon realising that insolvency was inevitable, the person liquidated their assets and gambled with the proceeds deliberately to prevent creditors being paid.

2.5. An example of a case involving "complex offences" would be where the gambling is accompanied by other offences, such as obtaining money by deception or concealing assets from the trustee. Inspector-General Practice Statement 6 – Referral of offences under section 271 (rash and hazardous gambling) 4

2.6. An example of a case involving prior warnings is likely to arise where a person has previously been bankrupt, there was evidence of a possible offence under section 271 and a warning letter was issued. If the person subsequently becomes bankrupt again and there is evidence of an offence under section 271, that offence may be considered for investigation and referral for prosecution.

2.7. It should be noted that the mere raising by an alleged offender of a defence that they have a "gambling problem" in order to avoid prosecution will not necessarily oblige ITSA to refrain from referring the allegation to the CDPP for determination. Supportive evidence confirming the debtor/bankrupt suffers from such a "problem" will be required.

2.8. Furthermore, should relevant long-term offending and repeat allegations be alleged, ITSA would expect to see evidence of self-help having been undertaken by the debtor/bankrupt, otherwise the matter would proceed to investigation with prosecution action being recommended.

3. REFERRAL PROCESS

3.1. ITSACDPP. ITSA considers gambling offences under section 271 to be unique offences and, consequently, takes a very rigorous approach to selecting and referring cases to the CDPP under this section.

3.2. To ensure a high level of scrutiny and consideration within ITSA, every potential referral is examined by the national head of ITSA Enforcement and no referral proceeds without his or her endorsement.

3.3. Any questions about how this policy is applied in a particular case can be directed to the National Manager, Regulation and Enforcement on 1300 364 785 or at fraud.enquiries@itsa.gov.au.