An Article in the Saudi Gazette Newspaper suggests that we ignore men who are abused by women.  by Saleh Bin Sabaan Makkah daily

A female television broadcaster who is also a women’s rights activist recently spoke about the phenomenon of violence against women in Arab societies. While demanding an end to this phenomenon, she said that female victims of violence suffer from various psychological disorders.

However, no discussions took place on the violence perpetrated by women against men. Is there any organization to count the number of men who have been subjected to violence and harassment from women? Every one of us – both men and women – know that a large number of men have been put behind bars simply because of women. They include murderers, thieves and corrupt officials. There are large numbers of men who have lost their dignity at the hands of women, have become mentally unstable, have committed suicide and have even become addicted to drugs.

Why do we not count these as examples of men who have been victimized by women? I recently read a warning from a women’s rights activist that there has been an increase in the number of men in Arab society who have become victims of assault and harassment at the hands of women. I think that the harassment caused by women is more harmful because it falls into the category of mental harassment.  Women resort to lies, manipulation, conspiracy and tricks that they employ in all occasions and situations. A woman will use words, tears, laughter, fake illness, and whispering to deceive her man. All of these are the sources of her strength. A woman outshines man in this respect because she has more control over her emotions and sentiments than a man does.  If you look at any food channel, you can see that most professional chefs who show their expertise and talent in the art of cuisine are men, even though cooking is supposed to be the duty of women. In general, women suffer from an acute shortage of creativity because they stick to the ground reality. Women are not typically inclined toward adventurism and experimentation. On the other hand, a woman is more dedicated to consumption and materialism. She is content with possessing things and simply keeping them without taking advantage of them. If you have a look at her “treasures” in the cupboards and trays of a kitchen, you will understand my point. For instance, it is futile to assume that she might spend half of the value of kitchenware on buying books.

Our correspondent Andreas Frank reports; The Australian Securities & Investments Commission released a 79-page report on “penalties for corporate wrongdoing” that examined penalties in Australia and compared them with those in the US, Britain, Hong Kong and Canada.

ASIC said the white paper would form a significant part of a submission to the government regarding financial wrongdoing penalties, which chairman Greg Medcraft has raised with the government repeatedly in recent months.

A key concern of Mr Medcraft, echoed by the report, is that penalties are often not as large as the proceeds of financial wrongdoing, meaning crooks have an incentive to do the wrong thing.

“The maximum fine that may be imposed may be substantially lower than the financial benefit obtained as a result of the wrongdoing,” the report said.
The maximum civil penalty for individuals involved in financial wrongdoing — including all of insider trading, market manipulation, disclosure and inappropriate advice — was just $200,000.

By contrast, the maximum in Canada was $1.05 million, unlimited in Britain, three times the benefit gained in the US, and the greater of $1.4m or three times the benefit gained in Hong Kong.

The $200,000 maximum had not changed since 1992 when they were enacted under the Corporations Act as they were not adjusted for inflation.

In Australia there are no non-criminal laws relating to “disgorgement” – or the removal of gains made by a person involved in financial wrongdoing – while each of comparison jurisdictions had such laws.

ASIC said disgorgement orders could offer “significant deterrent value” by reducing the likelihood wrongdoers “can consider penalties to be merely a business cost”.
The corporate regulator also highlighted the discrepancies between the maximum civil penalties that could be delivered by different Australian regulatory and enforcement bodies.

The highest civil penalty ASIC could impose under the ASIC Act on an individual was just $340,000, one-tenth of the $3.4m that could be handed down under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.

The maximum penalty for a company, group or “body corporate” was $1.7m under the ASIC Act and $17m under anti-terrorism and money-laundering provisions.

Under the Competition and Consumer Act an individual could be fined a civil penalty as high as $500,000 and corporations could be fined the greater of the three: $10m, three times the value of the benefits obtained by the wrongdoing or 10 per cent of the company’s annual turnover.

ASIC also noted there were different penalties for the same wrongdoing under different acts.

“If we pursue an individual for providing unlicensed financial services under the Corporations Act, we could obtain at most a criminal fine of $34,000,” the corporate regulator said.

By contrast, a person pursued under the National Credit Act for engaging in “unlicensed credit activity” could be forced to pay up to $340,000 in fines.
ASIC Report

This may be part of what ‘sanctions’ against Russia means.

Victor Lipukhin, formerly a resident of St. Charles, Ill., was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo., for attempting to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws and filing false tax returns, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced today.  The charges relate to Lipukhin hiding millions of dollars in several Swiss bank accounts held at UBS AG.   Russian’s Target of IRS Related Probes