14.01.2013 Views

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

View/Open - Research Commons - The University of Waikato

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

fraudulent purpose.” 201 Although section 213 <strong>of</strong> the UK Insolvency Act 1986<br />

deals with civil liability, while section 380 <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act<br />

2006 and section 993 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 2006 refer to criminal <strong>of</strong>fences,<br />

the components to be proven under both Acts are the same. <strong>The</strong> courts in the UK<br />

have referred to cases under section 213 for the purpose <strong>of</strong> establishing liability<br />

under section 993.<br />

Due to this, it is submitted that there is a likelihood that the New Zealand courts<br />

will interpret section 380(1) in the same way as their UK counterparts. <strong>The</strong><br />

distinguishing factor between civil and criminal liability is the standard <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong><br />

for proving intention. In the former, it is on a balance <strong>of</strong> probabilities, while for<br />

the latter it is pro<strong>of</strong> beyond reasonable doubt. Both sections 380 <strong>of</strong> the New<br />

Zealand Companies Act 1993 and 993 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 2006 apply<br />

throughout the life <strong>of</strong> the company and are not limited to when the company has<br />

been wound up, as required under section 213 <strong>of</strong> the UK Insolvency Act 1986.<br />

Unlike subsection (1) which applies to any person who "knowingly becomes a<br />

party to the carrying on <strong>of</strong> the business,” <strong>of</strong>fences under subsections (2) and (3)<br />

are imposed only on directors <strong>of</strong> the company. Section 380(2) sets out the<br />

circumstances when directors <strong>of</strong> the company who have the intention to defraud<br />

creditors commit the <strong>of</strong>fence. 202 <strong>The</strong> situations mentioned in the subsection deal<br />

mostly with the company‟s property being put out <strong>of</strong> the reach <strong>of</strong> the creditors.<br />

It is not necessary for the directors in question to have obtained a personal<br />

advantage themselves. It is sufficient if, by deceit and fraud, they cause the<br />

201<br />

See section 380(1) <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993-“Every person who is knowingly<br />

a party to a company carrying on business with intent to defraud creditors <strong>of</strong> the company or<br />

any other person or for a fraudulent purpose commits an <strong>of</strong>fence and is liable on conviction to<br />

the penalties set out in section 373(4)”. See also the section 213 <strong>of</strong> the UK Insolvency Act 1986<br />

and section 993 <strong>of</strong> the UK Companies Act 2006.<br />

202<br />

Section 380(2) <strong>of</strong> the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 –“ Every director <strong>of</strong> a company<br />

who,a)<br />

by false pretense or other fraud induces a person to give credit to the company; or<br />

b) with intent to defraud creditors <strong>of</strong> the company,<br />

(i) gives, transfers or causes a charge to be given on, property <strong>of</strong><br />

the company to any person; or<br />

(ii) causes property to be given or transferred to any person; or<br />

(iii) caused or was a party to execution being levied against property<br />

<strong>of</strong> the company."<br />

275

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!