University Commercial and Corporation Law: Soong Case Report Analysis

This report analyzes the case of Steven Andrew Soong, focusing on his alleged involvement in Ponzi schemes and phoenix activities, as reported in various news sources and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). The report details allegations of tax liabilities and failure to perform duties, referencing breaches of the Corporation Act 2001, including sections 180, 181, and 269 of the Taxation Administration Act. It examines potential penalties under the Corporation Act, including those outlined in section 1317G and criminal provisions in Section 184. The report also references relevant case law, such as Giudice v Bolwell [2012] VSC 280 and ASIC v Cassimetis [2012]. The report concludes that Mr. Soong faces potential liabilities based on the evidence provided by liquidators and the ASIC, potentially leading to suspension and legal consequences. The report is a comprehensive analysis of the legal and financial implications of Mr. Soong's actions.

Running head: COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Case of Steven Andrew Soong
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Table of Contents
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................2
Discussion:.................................................................................................................................2
Allegation:..............................................................................................................................2
Breached section:....................................................................................................................2
Penalties..................................................................................................................................3
Cases.......................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion:................................................................................................................................3
Reference:..................................................................................................................................4

2COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Introduction:
The nature of the report is based on the newspaper content. The subject matter of this
report is to analyse the performance of Steven Andrew Soong who has been reported to run
certain ponzi schemes and involved in the phoenix activity. The news regarding Mr. Soong
has been published in certain leading newspaper and the official journal of Australian
Security and Investigation Commission has proved its truthfulness (Asic.gov.au, 2017).
Discussion:
Allegation:
According to the report made by the liquidators and the Australian Securities and
Investigation Commission, Mr. Soong has operated three companies and failed to pay tax
properly. It has been alleged that the tax evaluation of the companies are also not
satisfactorily. According to the statements that have been revealed by the ASIC mentioned
that he has also failed to perform his duties properly and he had collected the debts and does
not pay it back to the office of taxation (Lian</a> and Lian, 2017). Allegation made by
the appointed liquidators by confirming that all the three companies of Mr. Soong are
suffering from tax liabilities and all the tax returns are pending. John Price argued that Mr.
Soong has enjoyed all the unfair advantages by indulging himself into the phoenix activities.
Breached section:
The performance of Mr. Soong has attracted certain provision regarding the
Corporation Act 2001 and it has been observed that there are sufficient grounds that can held
him liable for necessary grounds. Considering his breach regarding the tax liabilities, it can
be observed that he has attracted the provision regarding section 269 of the Taxation
Administration Act (Woellner et al. 2013). Regarding the allegation against the collection of

3COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
money on the labour hire, it can be stated that the provision regarding section 180 of the
Corporation Act 2001 has been maintained. He had failed to perform his duty in good faith
and violating the provision of section 181 of the Corporation Act 2001.
Penalties:
The main motto of the Corporation Act is to maintain all the provisions serially to
avoid any future contradiction. In the present case, it has been observed that certain provision
have been violated and the provisions of other related laws are also violated. For the violation
of the section of Corporation Act, it can be stated section 1317G has been maintained. The
Corporation Act has empowered the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission to
suspend any directors against whom violation of the provision has been alleged. They can
enjoy this power by applying section 206F of the Corporation Act. The limit for such
suspension is up to five years. There are certain criminal provisions mentioned in Section 184
of the Corporation Act that provides breach of duty by the directors.
Cases:
Mr. Soong was liable for conjoined himself to Phoenix activities and the case
regarding the same was observed in Giudice v Bolwell [2012] VSC 280. The provision
regarding breach of director’s duty has been noticed in ASIC v Cassimetis [2012].
Conclusion:
This report can be concluded with the facts that the information submitted by the
liquidators and the Australian Securities and Investigation Commission have clearly specified
the allegations and it has been reported by the newspapers that Mr. Soong has been
suspended from his post and he will be held liable if the grounds are proved (Ferguson,
2017).

4COMMERCIAL AND CORPORATION LAW
Reference:
Asic.gov.au. (2017). 17-309MR Former director disqualified from managing companies |
ASIC - Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [online] Available at:
http://asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2017-releases/17-309mr-
former-director-disqualified-from-managing-companies/ [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017].
Ferguson, A. (2017). The phoenix dilemma: how to stop rort artists from rising from the
ashes. [online] The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-phoenix-dilemma-how-to-stop-rort-artists-from-rising-
from-the-ashes-20101210-18svy.html [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017].
Lian</a>, &. and Lian, J. (2017). Director banned following $1.2m tax liability.
[online] Accountantsdaily.com.au. Available at:
https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/news/10786-director-banned-following-1-2m-tax-
liability [Accessed 18 Oct. 2017].
Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2013. Australian Taxation
Law Select: legislation and commentary. CCH Australia.