Corpus

Civil penalties; imposition and recovery.

Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-19
in effect
Sign in to generate a plain English summaryAsk Belisarius Agent
Civil remedies. Any person who violated the terms of an injunction issued under Section 75-24-9 shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per violation which shall be payable to the General Fund of the State of Mississippi. For the purposes of this section, the chancery or county court issuing an injunction shall retain jurisdiction, and the cause shall be continued, and in such cases the Attorney General acting in the name of the state may petition for recovery of civil penalties. In any action brought under Section 75-24-9, if the court finds from clear and convincing evidence, that a person knowingly and willfully used any unfair or deceptive trade practice, method or act prohibited by Section 75-24-5, the Attorney General, upon petition to the court, may recover on behalf of the state a civil penalty in a sum not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per violation. One-half (1/2) of said penalty shall be payable to the Office of Consumer Protection to be deposited into the Attorney General’s special fund. All monies collected under this section shall be used by the Attorney General for consumer fraud education and investigative and enforcement operations of the Office of Consumer Protection. The other one-half (1/2) shall be payable to the General Fund of the State of Mississippi. The Attorney General may also recover, in addition to any other relief that may be provided in this section, investigative costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee. No penalty authorized by this section shall be deemed to limit the court’s powers to insure compliance with its orders, decrees and judgments, or punish for the violations thereof. For purposes of this section, a knowing and willful violation occurs when the court finds from clear and convincing evidence that the party committing the violation knew or should have known that his conduct was a violation of Section 75-24-5.