| A combination of fining in excess of the additional profits made AND compensating the customers! |
|
1 |
| A list should be made of companies indulging in this practice for public scrutiny |
|
1 |
| A wise shopper would check prices in various establishments before purchasing, but sometimes this is not possible for various reasons. Perhaps a voucher to exchange for another item/items in the store/s which have fixed prices too high, would be good comp |
|
1 |
| All directors should be fined equal to his/her last two years earnings and barred from any commercial activity for twenty years |
|
1 |
| All the Directors involved should be sacked without compensation. |
|
1 |
| Being banned from selling the products that they have tried to fix the prices on. |
|
1 |
| Company Directors to be fined 1 years pay and no bonuses. |
|
1 |
| Criminal charges for company directors. |
|
1 |
| Criminal prosecution of the directors who colluded in the price fixing. |
|
1 |
| Director level accountability including custodial sentences |
|
1 |
| Directors should be PERSONALLY punished in some way. |
|
1 |
| Directors should face prosecution and imprisonment for what amounts to fraud. |
|
1 |
| Escalating fines for repeat offences and, ultimately, a ban from trading. |
|
1 |
| Every person involved in the price fixing should never be allowed to be in the position where they could be tempted, for any reason, to defraud a human being again, including a course of rehabilitation to hopefully a world society, there are no such thing |
|
1 |
| Executives responsible should be prosecuted and face jail. Company Directors involved should be barred from holding directorships. |
|
1 |
| Extra profits forfeited to local charities, put back into the community from which it was taken. |
|
1 |
| Fine equal to their turnover during the period for which prices were fixed. |
|
1 |
| Fining would have no meaningfl effect as both/all businesses would be fined the same and the customer would effectively be the one that is paying the fine, only the body that hands out the fines would be a winner along with the businesses who still make |
|
1 |
| I understood punished in previous question as meaning something more stringent than the suggestions above. The scenarios only seem relevant if the companies are selling easily comparable goods (eg toothpaste!). |
|
1 |
| Imprisonment |
|
1 |
| In some circumstances, a restriction of their licence to trade. |
|
1 |
| Just made to change prices back |
|
1 |
| Lose the power to set their own prices |
|
1 |
| Naming so that the public can choose whether they use their business. They are in business to make a profit, it they make a loss we don't subsidise them. |
|
1 |
| Regular independant audits |
|
1 |
| Shot at dawn |
|
1 |
| Should be referred for a briefing on good business ethics |
|
1 |
| Tax Penalties |
|
1 |
| The fine should be poured back into the local community. |
|
1 |
| They should be stopped from doing it again |
|
1 |
| They should be told in no un-certain words, if caught again the fine would be double. |
|
1 |
| Those company executives who thought of the idea should be imprisoned for at least 20 years, their assets wholly taken by the state and after their jail sentence has expired should be obliged to conduct public service. |
|
1 |
| Trading suspended or stopped because effectively I think it is fraud/stealing |
|
1 |
| Unlimited fine and prison in the worst cases. |
|
1 |
| Verbal or written warning |
|
1 |
| cease trading for a week - that would maybe make them think twice before doing it again |
|
1 |
| compensation paid to charities |
|
1 |
| fine should go to charity |
|
1 |
| give extra allowances to the independent small retail businesses who are struggling against the price fixing of the larger companies and brands |
|
1 |
| give the extra money to charity |
|
1 |
| peopl make their own choices as to where they shop. It is up to the customer to 'shop around' using internet,newspapers etc. |
|
1 |
| personal criminalisation of the employees/owners involved |
|
1 |
| possibly ban them from advertising for a set period. |
|
1 |
| potentially sanctions against the company potentially restricting it's licence to trade in the future depending on it's conduct. |
|
1 |
| prosecution |
|
1 |
| public apology. |
|
1 |
| public naming and shaming and the removal of extra profit to be donated to charity |
|
1 |
| removal of the extra profit in some way and heavy duty monitoring of them for some time period to ensure no repetition. Possibly the cash should go to local amenities |
|
1 |
| some tax breaks removed etc or increased business rate |
|
1 |
| the money they have profited form should be divided between charities |
|
1 |
Login