From my understanding, the Judge found that criminal acts were done by Michael Smith, and that Omnilab, planned and carried out a plan to steel the contracts. In carrying out this plan, Michael Smith broke the corporations act. (From my understanding a criminal act with jail time) Very much in ASICs domain.

In any case, from my understanding, Michael Smith, Omnilab and ICAA, who was complicit in the fraud, continued this misbehavior. Using misinformation to justify what it was doing. Ie telling cinema owners any lie they needed to.

The Cinemas will have a case against them, yes I very much expect. But like many legal issue like this, it is made as convoluted as possible by the fraudulent party as to make it impossible to follow up in the courts. And I expect that is exactly what will happen. Nothing. Our legal system is broken, and easy for those who know, to play it so they cannot be made accountable.

My issue is that ASIC saw this happening, and experience would have shown, they knew what was going to happen. If they stepped in when they had a very good reason to. Those involved would not have destroyed this opportunity completely.

And, from my understanding, Michael smith admitted to the judge while on the stand that he lied to his fellow directors. An open and shut case really. So an excuse of wasting money is mute.

Its more a policy of do nothing unless its politically embarrassing.

ASIC is a disgrace.

James

You are obviously upset about this episode, william.s, but that doesn't excuse sloppy handling of the facts of the case.

>>Michael Smith broke the corporations act. (From my understanding a criminal act with jail time) Very much in ASICs domain.<<

As I pointed out to you, the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act carry civil penalties. I even gave you the exact clauses, so that you could check them out yourself. You may not like it, but it is not a criminal issue.

>>The Cinemas will have a case against them, yes I very much expect. But like many legal issue like this, it is made as convoluted as possible by the fraudulent party as to make it impossible to follow up in the courts.<<

I would have thought that the basics of the case are pretty simple. What would take up a great deal of lawyers time, on both sides, is arguing the amount of damages involved. Civil cases are all about compensation, and much of the discussions would revolve around what steps the injured party took to minimize the loss.

Once again, you may not like it, but that's real life.

>>Our legal system is broken<<

I recommend that you apply some perspective. It might help your blood pressure.