Corporate Act 2001

Question: I. Which laws and laws do the company have criminal responsibility? II. Discuss whether the actions of low level employees bring criminal responsibility to companies that do not take on strict responsibility for regulated crime. Rule: I. Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd vs. Asian Oil Corporation [1915] AC 705 II. H L Bolton Co Ltd v. T J Graham & Sons Ltd [1975] 1 QB 159 III. Tesco supermarket vs Nutlass [1972] AC 153 IV. Meridian Global Fund Management Asia v. Securities Commission (1995) 13 ACLC 3245 V. ABC Development Learning Center Pty Ltd. v. Wallace [2006] VSC 171 VI. Penal Code (Federal) of 1995 VII. Company Act VIII, 2001. Trade Practice Act of 1974 (Federation) IX. CRIM

Article 180 (1) of the Corporate Law of 2001 stipulates the cautious and diligent duty of company directors. The officers or officers of the company have stipulated that they must exercise their authority with certain precautions and carry out their duties. In the following cases, a reasonable and prudent person is a standard. If the director of the company is a reasonable and prudent person, it must be as expected as long as it is a director or the same position in the same position. In other words, the standards of care required by the directors are generally the same for those reasonably wise. Directors are responsible for acting for the company's interests and benefits. Directors are responsible for directly avoiding conflicts of interest ("Personal responsibility for directors' corporate responsibility", 2007)

In this case, the responsibility of Director Company Law 2001 section 180 (1) must be cautious. The standard of care expected is as careful as the average person. The director of GML has fulfilled nursing obligations by entrusting technical information on minable copper to other people (including geologists). It is the responsibility of the manager to decide whether the investment was successful. In this case, the obligation to care for all the directors is the same. For directors with geological knowledge, the obligation to care is special. The Board of Directors will ensure that the reports submitted prior to the advisory of the Directors are considered cautious. In this case, Mr. Chester with geological qualification has a special understanding on this subject and therefore has special care criteria.