Business Case Corporate Social Responsibility

Question: Discuss about the Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Answer: Introduction There have been different sorts of frauds in the trading over the past couple of years but the most common of them is the Insider Trading. Most of the people even do not know what insider trading is but they are a victim of doing that crime. Yes, it is a crime in terms of trading because it is just like giving away your schools chair and table to some other school without their consent. Similarly, insider trading means when an individual even if he is a director of a company shares some confidential information about the company or other employees with others without the consent of the company. This is something which is considered as a crime in trading. In both the cases, insider trading led to financial gains and profits being earned the illegal way. In Kamay vs The Queen, Lukas Kamay and his co-offender Christopher Hill were sentenced to 7 years and 3 months and 3 years 3 months respectively. While in the case of Oliver Curtis, he was sentenced to a maximum of 5 years in prison and a fine of $220,000. Both cases showcased the strict measures taken by the judges and their approach shows that they wanted these cases to be a lesson for all those who are committing or even think about committing any crime including insider trading. In the case of Kamay vs the queen, the judge stated that both of the offenders indulged in the crime solely for financial gain, and had not succumbed to any gambling addiction or financial pressure and in addition, both men had felt remorse for their wrongdoings and had plead guilty. The judge also commented that the young offenders had a genuine prospect for rehabilitation. The sentence was also indicated as a warning towards the young people also engaged in the corporate world to refrain from participating in shameful and illegal acts such as these. Oliver Curtis on the other hand had committed this act solely on the basis of greed and to continue his lavish lifestyle. The judge gave a strict decision and did not change it as the guilty party wanted to lessen their imprisonment period due to having kids and the effect this would have on them. The applicant of the case sought appeal on 5 different grounds: The judge erred by failing to properly differentiate between the applicants four different counts of insider trading. The learned judge failed properly to take into notice the profit achieved by the applicant on each separate count of insider trading by placing chief emphasis on this very profit as a way of constituting the foremost criteria for distinguishing in the sentence on these charges (Sloan Gavin, 2010) The judge erred in sentence by unreasonably discriminating between the applicant and his co-offender The judge was inaccurate in imposing individual sentences, a total effective sentence and a non-parole time period that were hugely excessive in the state of affairs The judge also misjudged by ordering cubulation on the sentence afflicted in respect of the charge II. (Laby, 2010) Leave was granted for the appeal, but the appeal was not successful and it was dismissed. There were a myriad of reasons why the appeal was dismissed; one of them was the number of trades and the length of the trading period. This plea was rejected as the Judge states that the trading period and the number of trades were not in this case prime objective indicia of the gravity of the offence. Profit can be a deficient indicator where gains or profit is totally out of the offenders control but in this case gains were all nearly certain and hence profit if not a prime indicium, will be an important factor of the objective seriousness of the offence. (Santolino, 2010) Another point of appeal was the excessive weight granted to the profit. This claim or point was also dismissed on the account of the applicant upon a collection of mitigating or lessening factors which the applicant submitted, and they show the sentences were evidently excessive including his pleading guilty at the first opportunity, his youthful immaturity and many others, and even with these factors the applicant himself submitted that if it were not for the amount of profit, he would not have been presented in the court. Parity is defined as two things being equal to another. The term par value, for example, is similar to parity as it can also be referred as two securities having similar value. Parity in legal terms denotes the state when a person is placed at an identical footing as another person. (Harvey Woodruff, 2013) It is a state or condition of being equal, or on the same level or rank. Many of the parity problems arise when co-offenders are charged at different times by different judges. It is highly desirable that co-offenders be charged by the same judge at the same time to avoid any parity problems in the future as the second judge would be bound by the findings of the first judge. Parity is a matter that is to be determined in regard to the circumstances of the co-offenders and their respective level of culpability. (Schmidt-Rauch Nussbaumer, 2011) The degree of culpability was different in the case of Kamay vs The queen where the original agreement agreed by Hill was that the trading would only go on for 12 months with the target of obtaining a profit of $200,000, allowing them to make a profit of $50,000 each. Kamay, succumbing to his greed and lust went beyond the scope of their agreement and achieved a profit of $8 million. Hill had no idea of the extension of Kamays wrongdoings and that he had gone so from the agreed amount. The judge in this case had considered the amount and involvement of the profits and hence Kamay had been penalized more than his co-offender. Although both of them were on the same floor or criminality, Hill pleaded guilty to insider trading and misuse of public office while Kamay plead guilty to counts of money laundering, insider trading and identity theft. On the basis of their charges and the levels of involvement and culpability, the co-offenders suffered different punishments and penalties. The Australia Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is Australias financial services, markets and corporate regulator which contributes to Australias wellbeing and economic reputation ensuring that the transactions within the market are just, transparent and fair so that they are supported by consumers and investors. (Meiners et al. 2014) The Commissions roles include dealing with the registration of companies and managing the investment schemes, monitoring the compliance of the companies with Australian regulations and the Compliance Act 2001, starting prosecutions against directors and companies for misconduct and not following regulations and seeking out and issuing infringement notices and civil penalties. The ASICs role is of mammoth importance in cases like these yet their inability to do anything about it is a huge question over the financial misdoings of the country and its regulatory authorities. (Ura, 2014) ASIC has been busy and more involved in spending more on enforcement actions abroad rather than its own country compared to overseas financial regulators. ASIC also struggles to perform all of its functions as its resources are utilized in going after lengthy, high profile criminal cases which are not contributing to achieve its strategic purposes. Looking at the case of Oliver Curtis, his offending took place somewhere between 2007 and 2008. After Curtiss accomplice turning him in in 2009, it took almost 6 years to secure his conviction. The inability of ASIC to perform its actions doesnt mean that it lacks funds and needs more money, but instead of chasing headline producing cases it should run after educating the people and preventing the financial crimes that are taking pl ace under its nose. (Burch, 2011) The AISC ought to stop looking for cases which involve the rich and famous or utilize its resources overseas, rather it should commit more of its capital and labor in catching the young corporate workers who are increasingly engaging in criminal acts and should also have education programs highlighting the consequences of these infringements. Insider trading is defined as a malpractice where people have access to private, non-public price sensitive information with which they make crucial investment decisions which will positively affect them and might have adverse effects on others. Insider trading, contrary to popular belief is not always illegal; legal insider can also occur. Legal Insider trading occurs when an insider is allowed legally to buy and sell shares of a firm that employs him or her, but these transactions must be registered in their entirety with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and are to be done with advance fillings. (Carroll Shabana, 2010) The other method is the infamous illegal way of insider trading which is the usage of price sensitive, non-public information for ones own profit and benefit. Insider trading as been deemed as a criminal offence since 1985 but convicted someone of insider trading can be complex due to some of the defenses that are brought forward such as: The person believed that the information had been widely disclosed, enough to avoid any prejudice amongst other parties to share the transaction The person who had sold or bought the shares would have done the same, with or without the inside information The person did not expect the dealing to result in any kind of gain or profit courtesy of the price sensitive information Having said all that, Insider trading should be a criminal offence. Having access to an advantageous situation, such as access to price sensitive information which is not available in the market and dealing in shares or securities or any anything else with the help of this information can bring gains and profits to one party, loss and misery to the other who might have done nothing wrong in their transaction. Simply saying, insider trading is a part of breaking the law and all those who break the law are to be punished one way or another, but care should be taken in accusing someone wrongly of insider trading as some individual might come across some insider information not knowing of its origins or the consequences associated with it. (Mann Roberts, 2012) In addition to acting justly against wrong doers, attention should be paid to prevention and the young ones working in the corporate world should be educated and kept an eye on strictly. Conclusion After considering both the cases above, it has been quite clear that why insider trading is considered as a crime and what are the reasons behind this offence. Some people think that it should not be considered as a crime but we have seen how it actually affects the integrity of the company. Therefore, insider trading must be considered as a crime in order to keep the confidential information associated with the company. References Burch, E. C. (2011). Litigating Together: Social, Moral, and Legal Obligations.BUL Rev., 91, 87. Carroll, A. B., Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International journal of management reviews, 12(1), 85-105. Harvey, A., Woodruff, M. J. (2013). Confirmation bias in the United States Supreme Court Judicial database. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(2), 414-460. Laby, A. B. (2010). Reforming the regulation of broker-dealers and investment advisers. The Business Lawyer, 395-440. Mann, R. A., Roberts, B. S. (2012). Essentials of business law and the legal environment. Cengage Learning. Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., Edwards, F. L. (2014). The legal environment of business. Cengage Learning. Santolino, M. (2010). Determinants of the decision to appeal against motor bodily injury judgements made by Spanish trial courts. International Review of Law and Economics, 30(1), 37-45. Schmidt-Rauch, S., Nussbaumer, P. (2011). Putting value co-creation into practice: a case for advisory support. In ECIS. Sloan, K., Gavin, J. H. (2010). Human resource management: Meeting the ethical obligations of the function. Business and Society Review, 115(1), 57-74. Ura, J. D. (2014). Backlash and legitimation: Macro political responses to Supreme Court Decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 110-126.