Report No. 29
14. White-collar crimes in England.-Certain species of white-collar crime have received special attention in England. One example is, "share-pushing" (victimisation of the public by fraudulent dealings in stocks and shares)1. Legislation penalising this mal-practice was enacted in 19392-3-4-5.
There are similar provisions in the Company Law in India6.
1. See Report of the Departmental Committee on Share-pushing, appointed by the President of the Board of Trade, (1937), Cmd. 5539.
2. Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939 (2 and 3 Geo. 6 c. 16) later replaced by the Act of 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2 c. 45).
3. See Gower Modern Company Law, (1957), (1963 Impression) pp. 285-286, for the Act of 1939.
4. For a summary of important cases on the Act, see Note in (1961) 24 Modern Law Review 781-784 by B.W.M. Downey.
5. See also analysis in R. v. Russell, (1953) 1 WLR 77 (79, 81) (CCA).
6. See section 68 of the Companies Act, 1956, (1 of 1956), punishing false, deceptive or misleading statements, etc., made by any person knowingly or recklessly to induce any other person to buy, etc., shares.
15. Another example of legislation relating to white-collar crime in England was the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, under section 1 of which it was unlawful to sell any goods the price of which was regulated, at a price exceeding the authorised price1.
1. The Act was replaced by the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act, 1941 (4 & 5 Geo. 6, c. 31) which, in its turn, was repealed by the S.L.P. Acts, 1950 and 1953.
16. Taxation frauds have been regarded as an important kind of white-collar crimes, and Legislatures in all countries have been constrained to go on adding more and more stringent provisions in the law relating to taxation, as so to bring within their net transactions which, under the pre-existing law, were not taxable. The problem assumed importance in England in the forties. For the present purpose, it is not necessary to discuss in detail the difference between "tax-evasion" and "tax-avoidance"1. The former is a breach of the law, while the latter raises only ethical questions.
1. See para. 99, et seq., infra.