In view of (a) the fact that the appellants, after their conviction by the trial judge, were in prison for one year, 146 days before their release on bail; (b) the reduction by N.L.C.D. 398 of the maximum sentence which could be imposed for the offences they committed from 25 years to 10 years; (c) the fact that the appellants did not benefit personally from the crime of which they were convicted and (d) that the assets of NADECO Ltd. were vested in the Republic by N.L.C.D. 94 and N.L.C.D. 116 and thus enabled the Commissioner of Income Tax to collect the tax properly exigible, the appeal against sentence should be allowed. In substitution for that sentence a term of one year, 146 days’ with hard labour (effective from the date of original conviction) and a fine of N¢1,000.00 each should be imposed, or in default twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. “It must be borne in mind that a crime has been committed; that it is one of the cardinal aims of penal policy to inflict punishment where merited to serve as a deterrent to others in society who might otherwise resort to a career of criminality; and that an offence is no less morally reprehensible merely because it is only an attempt to commit the substantive crime, or that the guilty did not in fact enrich themselves at the expense of the State or a victim. We must also not lose sight of the fact that the unchecked and fraudulent evasion and violation of laws designed to protect the economy of the country will in the end militate against the interests, well-being and good order of society, for whose good governance and benefit those very laws were designed. However, it is noteworthy that in the case before us the State has re-considered the severity of the penalty, and has now prescribed a lesser penalty. We cannot be insensitive to the human and liberal considerations underlying this change of penal policy.