Mr. Tom O'Malley:

It could probably still function. The Deputy is right to say there does not need to be a victim because deception offences are often so defined that a person commits an offence if he or she engages in certain conduct to make a gain for himself or herself or another or to cause loss to somebody. Wrongfully seeking to make a gain for oneself, even if there is no identifiable victim, still comes within the definition of these particular offences. The recklessness would be as to the nature of the conduct in which the person is engaging. As to why it is not there already and the adequacy of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, the legislation dates from 2001 when it was based, as it happens, on a report of the Law Reform Commission from the 1990s. It is unlikely that a collapse of the system of the kind which occurred in 2007 and 2008 was remotely contemplated at that time. Therefore, the question is whether the offences in the Act are adequate to deal with this purpose. We have made other proposals which must be taken into account also. Very often, there is a question as to who can actually be prosecuted in a given scenario. Particularly relevant in this context are the ways in which companies can be found criminally liable.

The recommendations we are making in that regard are equally important to ensure that there are for the first time ever, if these recommendations are adopted, fairly clear rules as to the circumstances in which a company as well as an individual can be held guilty of criminal offence.