The bill imposes a minimum sentence of two years, when in fact the legislation provides for a maximum sentence of 14 years. Mention was made of parole eligibility after serving one-sixth of the sentence. Why not address the issue of the tax havens that fraudsters can retreat to once they have served their sentence? Why not bring in harsher measures and insist on steps being taken to provide restitution to the victims of fraud?
I want to know how a minimum sentence of two years acts as a deterrent, when provision is already in place for a maximum sentence of 14 years. I don't understand why you would bother with a two-year sentence or include it as a provision in a bill.
Please explain this me.