765 ILCS 1026/15-1205
Other civil penalties
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1026/15-1205)
Sec. 15-1205. Other civil penalties. (a) If a holder enters into a contract or other arrangement for the purpose of evading an obligation under this Act or otherwise willfully fails to perform a duty imposed on the holder under this Act, the administrator may require the holder to pay the administrator, in addition to interest as provided in subsection (a) of Section 15-1204, a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day the obligation is evaded or the duty is not performed, up to a cumulative maximum amount of $25,000, plus 25% of the amount or value of property that should have been but was not reported, paid, or delivered as a result of the evasion or failure to perform. (b) If a holder makes a fraudulent report under this Act, the administrator may require the holder to pay to the administrator, in addition to interest under subsection (a) of Section 15-1204, a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day from the date the report was made until corrected, up to a cumulative maximum of $25,000, plus 25% of the amount or value of any property that should have been reported but was not included in the report or was underreported.
(Source: P.A. 100-22, eff. 1-1-18.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case (1 in the last 5 years), 2022–2022 · leading case: State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A.
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (2022)
“In addition, an “administrator may require the holder” to “pay the administrator” additional penalties (see 765 ILCS 1026/15-1205(a), 765 ILCS 1026/15-1204(b)) under certain circumstances.”
— 765 ILCS 1026/15-1205(a) — 1 case
State of Illinois Ex. Rel Ken Elder v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. (2022)
“In addition, an “administrator may require the holder” to “pay the administrator” additional penalties (see 765 ILCS 1026/15-1205(a), 765 ILCS 1026/15-1204(b)) under certain circumstances.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|