There are two types of organised crime. There’s the not-very-well-organised crime which government ministers and police commissioners periodically threaten to clamp down hard on, even occasionally managing a few arrests. And then there’s the much-better-organised crime. This pays heaps more and its practitioners generally lead the life of Reilly whilst government ministers and police commissioners chase the not-so-well-organised small fry.
With a few exceptions, the rewards of the former tend to be irregular and desultory, probably averaging out to a lower hourly rate than even Uber drivers. What’s more, they involve high-risk options often leading to a life nasty, brutish and short.
The rewards for the better organised, though, are comparatively low-risk, bountiful, and consistent – often allowing its adherents to maintain top-end material benefits in a manner to which they wish to remain accustomed.
The less-well-organised criminals even give the cops a boost by going the extra mile to remain conspicuous. Some wear leather jackets and vests that appear freshly stripped from the backs of vanquished Spanish fighting bulls, emblazoned with crude but arresting graphics that boldly and handily advertise their club affiliation. Should the police require their assistance with enquiries, all they have to do is knock at the clubhouse door, where the jacket-wearers are conveniently located most days.
Often keen motorbikers, even when the less-well-organised cruise the byways and highways, they ensure their whereabouts are known to the authorities at all times via muffler systems which exist in name only. On windless days, the various migrating motorbike herds are audible as far afield as the steppes of Kazakhstan, and therefore easily monitored.
On the other hand, the better-organised crims generally keep a lower profile by blending into the city suit brigades. Not too flashy business attire, devoid of brazen ID emblems – all the better for wealth by stealth. Their modes of transport are equally low profile – a bit like the old Rolls-Royces, where it was advertised that at 60mph (Imperial measures only, back then) the loudest sound was the ticking of the dashboard clock.
The key thing is that when the better-organised do the hanky-panky with someone else’s cash or assets, they do so in a way that, if sprung, results in proceedings ending up in a Civil court, not a Criminal court. As the term implies, life in the Civil court is markedly more civilised than all the low-life argy bargy that goes on in grubby Criminal courts. What’s more, even if the Civil court deems the miscreant to have seriously erred in their belief they had a right to trouser someone else’s hard-earned couple of mill, chances are very slim they’ll ever see the inside of a chokey.
Apparently, these differences exist because governmental powers-that-be deem certain acts criminal offences against society, requiring appropriate punishment and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, civil charges are said to be filed by parties seeking private dispute resolution via compensation, with more flaccid standards of proof.
But which anti-social misconduct ends up getting tried in which court seems to be a very mobile feast.
Take the current case of the ANZ Banking Group vs the Australian Government. (An offshore organisation, admittedly, but with sufficient comity to NZ counterparts to be also relevant here, especially given an ex NZ Prime Minister was until recently chairman of its NZ division.)
According to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC): “Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) has admitted to engaging in unconscionable conduct in services it provided to the Australian Government, incorrectly reporting its bond trading data to the Australian Government by overstating the volumes by tens of billions of dollars and to widespread misconduct across products and services impacting nearly 65,000 customers.”
And there’s plenty more where that came from. Here’s just a sample: “- Making false and misleading statements about its savings interest rates and failing to pay the promised interest rate to tens of thousands of customers, and – Failing to refund fees charged to thousands of dead customers and not responding to loved ones trying to deal with deceased estates within the required timeframe.”
‘In the bond trading case, ANZ was in a trusted position and its conduct had the potential to reduce the amount of funding available to the government. This funding is used to support critical services, including Australia’s health and education systems, affecting all Australians.” “ASIC has now brought eleven civil penalty proceedings against ANZ since 2016, with proposed and ordered penalties totalling more than $310 million.” “ANZ has admitted the allegations in each of the proceedings.”
The ASIC concludes that “the cost of breaking the law is not an acceptable cost of doing business.”
‘Misconduct’ indeed. Even ‘law-breaking’! And of industrial proportions! And we’re talking here about a company whose annual profit a few years ago was more than the combined profits of the top eight or nine companies listed on the NZX, NZ’s official stock exchange.
But here’s where it pays – if you’re in the organised misconduct business – to be really well organised.
First up, you make sure you’re pally with Government itself. Remember, criminal cases are meant only for crimes against society, while civil courts handle private disputes. But here, ANZ has persuaded the Government that the same Government they were trying to rip off is not itself part of society as we know it, and therefore, as a private entity, is able to have alleged offences against it tried in a civil court.
Once you’re in the Civil court, you find that the terminology surrounding the irregular – possibly illegal – behaviour gets a lot more civil. Crude terms like ‘theft’, ‘stealing’ and ‘fraud’ are left for use in the grubby goings-on of the criminal court. The talk is now more about purported events like ‘misappropriation’, ‘misconduct’, ‘misrepresentation’, and so forth. ‘Misdemeanour’ stuff, as opposed to crude ‘crime’.
Next, you make sure you’re pally enough with the courts themselves to co-recommend – if you fess up and save a lot of bother – what your own punishment should be. And you can bet your bippy the recommendations won’t include time in chokey for any actual or attempted ‘misdirection’ of funds, even of staggering sums. Sums that would make the value of the French crown jewels that were recently ‘misdirected’ from the Louvre seem like small change.
Imagine, for a moment, too, should the Louvre perps be caught, the porridge time they will most likely receive. Probably enough to make the Count of Monte Cristo think he had a soft lag. That’s the price you pay when your organised crime is insufficiently organised so as to end up in an un-civil court.
So remember, the next time you decide – for the purposes of upgrading the yacht – to ‘misdirect’ a few million bucks that should instead have gone to the Treasury vaults for tax purposes, to keep your collar white and your tie tight. That way, if your collar ends up getting fingered, the reception is bound to be a lot more civil.
Frank Greenall has been a copywriter, scriptwriter, artist, political cartoonist, adult literacy tutor and administrator, and Whanganui Chronicle columnist for many years, amongst numerous other sundry occupations. His cartoons and articles have appeared in most major NZ newspapers at various times. He has a BA in politics and a Masters in adult literacy/numeracy. https://stevebaron.co.nz/author/frankgreenall/