| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
knowingly |
|
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to having knowingly made false statements, but argued in his defence that he did not want to reveal the «banking» systgem to which his employer had forced him to belong; otherwise, he would have lost his chances for re-employment with that employer. This argument was rejected by the Court. The conditions in which the statements were made might have value as extenuating circumstances for the purposes of assessing the penalty, but this is a matter in which the Commission or the BOR is authorized to rule.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| penalties |
amount of penalty |
mitigating circumstances |
|
Summary:
Claimant admitted to having knowingly made false statements, but argued in his defence that he did not want to reveal the «banking» systgem to which his employer had forced him to belong; otherwise, he would have lost his chances for re-employment with that employer. This argument was rejected by the Court. The conditions in which the statements were made might have value as extenuating circumstances for the purposes of assessing the penalty, but this is a matter in which the Commission or the BOR is authorized to rule.
