Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sean Quinn avoids jail

124

Comments

  • #152
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Shea O'Meara wrote: »
    Does the Independent have a city edition, like the Herald? That would explain any perceived bias either way. Different version for different audience.

    Also, everybody, including Quinn, are agreed on the facts of the case. That's one side. The only thing being debated, although I can't see any reason why, is should he be held to account. He believes not. Rich people don't believe in the laws of the little folk when it comes to their millions.

    I don't think that is what is being debated- If he was not being held to account then whats with his son being in prison and his companies being seized?

    From listening to Quinns arguments I think what is being debated is the legality of the banks loans to buy shares. The premise being that the bank falsified information to get Quinn to buy their shares. There is a court case about this although I am not sure what stage it is at.


  • #153
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Firstly- its not my point, its been expressed by many on the Quinn side- my point is there are 2 sides to the story.
    Secondly- its not irrelevant, its what Quinn has based his actions on. If you actually listened to both sides of the argument you would have realised that. Shouting that it is 'IRRELEVANT' reflects the level of your understanding of the conflicting sides of this debacle. You should step back and objectively consider whether a decision on that case is relevant or linked.

    Both sides put their stories to a commercial court judge. One side was found to be dishonest, deceitful, contemptuous. This thread relates to the 455m. I'll ask again what your point is? Quinn has been found to have moved assets relating to this debt. Are you saying that due to disputed debts that he should be supported in whatever actions he and his family take towards non-payment of the undisputed debts?

    The Quinn supporters focus of blame for the losses of Quinn insurance has also been misplaced, excusing Quinn and blaming the administrators.

    Case in point
    Ramshackled wrote: »
    one thing that is still puzzling me though is how the cost of the administration of quinn-direct is so high, since the administrators took over, the cost has gone up and up and blaming Sean Quinn for the continous estimations upwards is wearing a bit thin at this stage.

    Why is there no accountablility for the administrators?

    This is down to the lies being spun by Quinn about his company having plenty of cash (see VB interview) while he wholly misunderstands either genuinely or dishonestly the difference between liquidity and solvency.. And the gombeens eat his mistruths up, happy that his waffle is muddying the waters and he's giving the two fingers to the 'Dublin government'

    The truth about the management of Quinn insurance and it's black hole has emerged today
    the call on the fund was due to the losses arising from the company’s failure to provide properly for future claims arising mostly on UK insurance policies sold before the administrators went into the company.

    I'm sorry I have to report from the Dublin meeja, I'm sure the Cavan chronicle reports the facts differently.

    And we see through Quinns same waffle he is muddying the waters and the minds about his debts to Anglo - now the irish taxpayer.

    Quinn either using personal wealth or borrowings increased his stake on Anglo to 25% over 2007. He did this through the CFD market unbeknownst to Anglo. Anglos share price started to fall. Quinn used company money to cover losses but eventually had to approach Anglo for a solution. It was then that the illegal loans were issued to cover Quinns position and protect him from losses and the bank from total collapse. It merely postponed the later. Quinn used these loans to pay back creditors on the CFD market. If these loans were illegal in the way he is claiming now (that he shouldn't have to pay them back) then he shouldn't have gotten the benefit of using that money to cover his losses. It has essentially been his debt to the markets converted into a debt to Anglo, converted into a debt to the taxpayer. If you want to put forth some alternative timeline then fire ahead. But the recent cases have been about the undisputed debts of 455m which he agreed to pay.

    Read this post and this post from the business forum for more detail.

    It's soon reaching the point where ignorance defeats patience


  • #154
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    From listening to Quinns arguments I think what is being debated is the legality of the banks loans to buy shares. The premise being that the bank falsified information to get Quinn to buy their shares. There is a court case about this although I am not sure what stage it is at.

    You quite clearly have no clue of the sequence of events. Quinn overexposed himself to the bank on the CFD market, unbeknownst to the bankers. They did not encourage this, a point of fact reported in the BBC article. It was after the share price started slipping and Quinn suffered losses that it became mutually beneficial for Quinn to be bailed out by the bank. They lent him money to cover the losses on the CFDs and they lent the maple ten monies to take some of these off Quinn to prevent a share price collapse.

    Your version of events is fantasy


  • #155
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Out of interest where are you both from jonnie and mdoyle?

    I'm from Dublin which makes me one of those evil conspirators, with my love of bankers and hatred of rural people....


  • #156
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    Out of interest where are you both from jonnie and mdoyle?

    I'm from Dublin which makes me one of those evil conspirators, with my love of bankers and hatred of rural people....
    Not really relevant but Meath. Did the newspapers tell you it was only cavan people that didnt understand the issue here!

    You evil Dublin conspirators are fools for voting in Bertie continuously. You are all equally responsible for the Celtic crash that in turn brought down Quinn. See- its urban that the problem, not rural :D


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Laminations wrote: »
    You quite clearly have no clue of the sequence of events. Quinn overexposed himself to the bank on the CFD market, unbeknownst to the bankers. They did not encourage this, a point of fact reported in the BBC article. It was after the share price started slipping and Quinn suffered losses that it became mutually beneficial for Quinn to be bailed out by the bank. They lent him money to cover the losses on the CFDs and they lent the maple ten monies to take some of these off Quinn to prevent a share price collapse.

    Your version of events is fantasy


    Indeed charges may follow in the near future over this " insider dealing" by Quinn and the Maple 10. The charges laid against the 3 former Anglo, Fitzpatrick and the other two managers are for alleged breaches of the 1963 company law act. There are 5 strands in the continuing police investigation and 4 to go, and charges may follow in all against others involved in the scam.

    IMO supporters of Quinn have tried to muddy the waters, trying to confuse the issue with the loans for the share dealings with a the legitimate loan ( about €500), that Quinn received, which is the matter that is before the courts, and Quinn putting all the assets pertinent to that loan beyond the bank. Quinn is only too happy to put all his problems in one basket so as to avoid paying any of the monies back.....even the legitimate loans. The gullible gombeens only too willingly buy into the contrived deceit.


  • #158
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Not really relevant but Meath. Did the newspapers tell you it was only cavan people that didnt understand the issue here!

    You evil Dublin conspirators are fools for voting in Bertie continuously. You are all equally responsible for the Celtic crash that in turn brought down Quinn. See- its urban that the problem, not rural :D

    Check yourself before you wreck yourself. I was one of Bertie's biggest critics on these boards and never voted for him, and in my disgust at the Drumcondra mafia I would never suppose all Drumcondra people or Dublin people were Bertie supporters or voters.similarly I don't presume that all rural people are Quinn supporters (nor all Cavan people), it's been Quinn who is at pains to make this a rural vs Dublin issue.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    From listening to Quinns arguments I think

    You need to evaluate what Quinn says.

    Here is a clear dismantling of many of his claims.

    You seem to be under the impression that anything Quinn says automatically qualifies as a side of the argument and a relevant side at that.


  • #159
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Indeed charges may follow in the near future over this " insider dealing" by Quinn and the Maple 10. The charges laid against the 3 former Anglo, Fitzpatrick and the other two managers are for alleged breaches of the 1963 company law act. There are 5 strands in the continuing police investigation and 4 to go, and charges may follow in all against others involved in the scam.

    IMO supporters of Quinn have tried to muddy the waters, trying to confuse the issue with the loans for the share dealings with a the legitimate loan ( about €500), that Quinn received, which is the matter that is before the courts, and Quinn putting all the assets pertinent to that loan beyond the bank. Quinn is only too happy to put all his problems in one basket so as to avoid paying any of the monies back.....even the legitimate loans. The gullible gombeens only too willingly buy into the contrived deceit.

    Yes and the illegality of the loans being used as an excuse for non-payment really annoys me. I'm sure that they were illegal and I'm sure they all knew this at the time. But Quinn took this money and used it to get himself out of hot water in the CFD market. If it was illegal then give it back and use your own money to pay your losses in the CFD market - but he can't give it back cos he spent it. I really do hope the courts see through that charade.

    I wonder would the same sympathy be extended if a bank robber gave his wife millions in criminal proceeds and she bought stuff with it. Would they defend her in not giving it back? Fitzpatrick and Drumm robbed Anglo to cover their bedfellow Quinn. Quinn benefitted from this (temporary stay of execution). You shouldn't get to benefit from criminal transactions.


  • #160
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    You quite clearly have no clue of the sequence of events. Quinn overexposed himself to the bank on the CFD market, unbeknownst to the bankers. They did not encourage this, a point of fact reported in the BBC article. It was after the share price started slipping and Quinn suffered losses that it became mutually beneficial for Quinn to be bailed out by the bank. They lent him money to cover the losses on the CFDs and they lent the maple ten monies to take some of these off Quinn to prevent a share price collapse.

    Your version of events is fantasy

    Is the underlined not subject to a court case?


  • #161
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    Check yourself before you wreck yourself. I was one of Bertie's biggest critics on these boards and never voted for him, and in my disgust at the Drumcondra mafia I would never suppose all Drumcondra people or Dublin people were Bertie supporters or voters.similarly I don't presume that all rural people are Quinn supporters (nor all Cavan people), it's been Quinn who is at pains to make this a rural vs Dublin issue.

    I think some of the reports you take your info from have been feeding this.

    By the way the 'big grin' green smiley face was an indication that it was not a serious point regarding Bertie.
    Laminations wrote: »
    You seem to be under the impression that anything Quinn says automatically qualifies as a side of the argument and a relevant side at that.
    Unlike you I don't accept that this argument is closed. The courts have still to decide on some of these matters so you would do well to take a chill pill for a wee while with your certainty.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    I don't see it as Dublin vs rural spin. The descriptions aren't aimed at rural people, they are aimed at Quinn supporters (who happen to be rural). And their support for Quinn makes the descriptions apt. Reminds me of a Jack Reacher novel 'Nothing to Lose' where he visits the 'company town' of Despair where all the locals are loyal work fodder for the metal recycling plant boss (the only employer in town).

    Laminations wrote: »
    I'm sorry I have to report from the Dublin meeja, I'm sure the Cavan chronicle reports the facts differently.

    So you don't see it as a rural/ urban divide?
    Or you do?


  • #163
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Is the underlined not subject to a court case?

    Why in gods name would Anglo encourage Quinn to buy shares? They most defeinitely encourahed his children to do so (along with the maple 10) but this was to bail Quinn out and to save Anglos share price from tanking.

    Quinn was losing on the CFD market, they (Anglo) could not have had Quinn offload 25% of their shares as it would've killed the illusion and Quinn in those worsening market conditions would not have been able to offload the shares in a large amount for any decent price - he would've suffered massive losses.

    It's interesting to read (knowing what we know now) comments from 2009 when the glare of the media was firmly on Sean Fitzpatrick and Quinn was getting ignored.
    I am fascinated by how little the media have made of this whole part of the Anglo debacle. Ireland's richest man bets on shares prices, loses that bet and is facilitated in walking away from paying for that bet. I'm not sure how much all of this played in the nationalisation of Anglo but he has got to bear some of the responsibility. To me what Sean Quinn did is the truest example of greed that I've seen.

    A thread like this explains the CFD deal very well and reminds us that the media hasn't been focused on Quinn for very long and will likely return to the bankers when those cases come up. But what Quinn did, he did to himself


  • #164
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    So you don't see it as a rural/ urban divide?
    Or you do?

    That was a tongue in cheek jibe at the people thinking this is some sort of Dublin conspiracy

    I don't think it should be a dublin v rural issue, but I acknowledge that some people are trying very hard to make it so.

    Being a Dubliner I don't take personal offence to Bertie supporters being called gombeen eejits. But in this debate when Quinn supporters are called gob****es some people like to take this as a personal slur and an insult to all rural people. Rural person =/= Quinn supporter and Quinn supporter =/= rural person.


  • #165
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    Why in gods name would Anglo encourage Quinn to buy shares?
    They most defeinitely encourahed his children to do so (along with the maple 10) but this was to bail Quinn out and to save Anglos share price from tanking.

    You have partly answered your own question. Again I point out that this is subject to a courtcase. This case should be fast tracked as it is entirely relevant to the current situation.


  • #166
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Not really relevant but Meath. Did the newspapers tell you it was only cavan people that didnt understand the issue here!

    You evil Dublin conspirators are fools for voting in Bertie continuously. You are all equally responsible for the Celtic crash that in turn brought down Quinn. See- its urban that the problem, not rural :D

    I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but voting for certain Meath councillors who in turn rezoned enough land to house the entire city population of Prague might have had a part to play in the crash. Meath, I believe, were the worst offender in this regard.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/meath-is-worst-overzoning-offender-2162365.html


  • #167
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You have partly answered your own question. Again I point out that this is subject to a courtcase. This case should be fast tracked as it is entirely relevant to the current situation.

    ??

    This was done AFTER Quinn had tied himself to Anglo buying up to 28% of the bank through CFDs

    How is this lending (which was done to save Anglo and Quinn) which Quinn knew was illegal at the time relevant to his debts of 455m??

    You are aware that Anglo lent to cover Quinns/Anglos exposure on the CFD market??

    Quinn and Anglo were going to lose either way, Quinn sped it along getting tied down in the CFD market (not being able to offload his stake without huge loses to him and the bank), Anglo tried to put on the breaks with illegal loans propping up the sahre price - in the end it didnt work

    Your argument is that Quinn was somehow duped / naive? At what point??


  • #168
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    ??

    This was done AFTER Quinn had tied himself to Anglo buying up to 28% of the bank through CFDs
    ?? indeed- you are now stating as fact items relating to the not yet ruled on court case.
    Laminations wrote: »

    How is this lending (which was done to save Anglo and Quinn) which Quinn knew was illegal at the time relevant to his debts of 455m??
    Come on -this is simple stuff!
    The contempt is in relation to hiding assets that are due to Anglo. The assets were hidden because Quinn believes the 2.8 billion debt is subject to a court challenge. He keeps using an annoying phrase about putting the cart before the horse when describing it. I would have thought that anyone following this would know that.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Your argument is that Quinn was somehow duped / naive? At what point??

    Wrong again. That is most certainly not my argument.


  • #169
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »


    The contempt is in relation to hiding assets that are due to Anglo. The assets were hidden because Quinn believes the 2.8 billion debt is subject to a court challenge. He keeps using an annoying phrase about putting the cart before the horse when describing it. I would have thought that anyone following this would know that.



    I think you will find that its 2.3 billion loan for the shares and €500 million that is a legitimate debt/ loan, but Quinn puts both together. The courts are the machinery of the rule of law and Quinn defies even them. If he feels so right he has an appeals procedure but to date he is in contempt and his nephew done a runner. What should we conclude.....that he is never wrong and he is above the law, even when the objective Courts find against him. Did he realize that buying shares in Anglo was insider dealing and illegal even aside from the illegal loans? Is he that stupid or thinks he is so clever, right or wrong he is right...always?


  • #170
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I think you will find that its 2.3 billion loan for the shares and €500 million that is a legitimate debt/ loan, but Quinn puts both together. The courts are the machinery of the rule of law and Quinn defies even them. If he feels so right he has an appeals procedure but to date he is in contempt and his nephew done a runner. What should we conclude.....that he is never wrong and he is above the law, even when the objective Courts find against him. Did he realize that buying shares in Anglo was insider dealing and illegal even aside from the illegal loans? Is he that stupid or thinks he is so clever, right or wrong he is right...always?

    Right always?- you are not giving an accurate picture. He has clearly admitted wrong doing over several matters quite openly.

    I agree he should abide by the law but I also would like to see the courts verdict on the 'contested' loans.


  • #171
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ?? indeed- you are now stating as fact items relating to the not yet ruled on court case.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/timeline-to-disaster-3189466.html

    Actually read some of my links.
    Come on -this is simple stuff!
    The contempt is in relation to hiding assets that are due to Anglo. The assets were hidden because Quinn believes the 2.8 billion debt is subject to a court challenge. He keeps using an annoying phrase about putting the cart before the horse when describing it. I would have thought that anyone following this would know that.

    And again you conflate the loans related to the CFDs with the 455m at the centre of this thread, the court cases and the contempt.
    Wrong again. That is most certainly not my argument.

    What is your argument? Really? Because all you've sputed are ignorant misunderstandings based in Quinns arguments (the Quinns have been found to be economical with the truth - e.g. Their account of Quinn Insurance)

    Are you suggesting that Angli started lending Quinn money in 2005 to buy their shares on the CFD market? Are you suggesting they wanted him to acquire 28% of the bank? Are you suggesting that because of disputed debts, Quinn should be supported in his actions of defiance and non-cooperation with the undisputed 455m?

    All you've done is wave towards the CFDs which you've no idea about.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I agree he should abide by the law

    finally
    but I also would like to see the courts verdict on the 'contested' loans.

    Why? Would that then allow him to disobey the law? How is that relevant to his actions and behaviour towards the courts? Seeing as the court has given its verdict on Quinns cooperation re the 455m why would you be any more inclinded to respect what the court says with regards the disputed debt?


  • #173
    mdoyler2
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭mdoyler2


    Laminations wrote: »

    Why? Would that then allow him to disobey the law? How is that relevant to his actions and behaviour towards the courts? Seeing as the court has given its verdict on Quinns cooperation re the 455m why would you be any more inclinded to respect what the court says with regards the disputed debt?

    -there has been NO ruling in relation to 445m. The QF agreed that amount is legitimate. Anglo have all the assets this lending relates to;
    -for the assets in Russia/India, Anglo are trying to say part of 2.3bn was for these properties, these are not included in the 445m;
    -Quinn is not 'disobeying' a Court order; he was found in contempt; Anglo via the Court have asked him to take corrective actions. Quinn is now saying he can no longer fix or take many of those corrective actions;

    I think the contempt is a bit of a side issue.

    The main issue is if Anglo lent for share support, which I believe its now generally accepted that they did. If Anglo lent to the Quinns for CfDs; the loans Anglo are relying on are illegal and the security is not valid.

    Furthermore,
    - you asked in an earlier post why would Anglo encourage people (Quinn) to buy shares. In 2007 the Anglo board had more then 100m of shares between them. They were encouraging every broker/investment fund in Ireland and aboard that their bank was solid and to buy. They obviously didn't think Quinn would buy so much through CfDs. But when they found out he had 25%, they didn't want him to sell, as disposing of the 25% CfD shareholding would have collapsed Anglo, therefore wiping out the 100m of shares held by the directors. Hence they decided to cover the margin calls, which is in breach of both S60 and the Market Abuse regulations.
    -the worst part is, I believe Drumm and Fitz would have got approval from the DoF and Central Bank for these loans; in order to cover their own arse. This explains why Anglo are driving a massive publicity spin against the Quinns, as the Anglo, the DoF and the CB are trying to cover up the truth.
    - developers and other borrowers particularly with NAMA have moved assets, NONE of them have been chased as hard as Quinn or received a tenth of the publicity he has got, which suggests there is something Anglo/the State are trying to cover up. The last think the DoF and CB would want, when seeking to restore the countries international financial credibility, is to have found to have aided and abetted Market Abuse.

    There is a lot more to this story than moving assets.


  • #174
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    mdoyler2 wrote: »
    -there has been NO ruling in relation to 445m. The QF agreed that amount is legitimate. Anglo have all the assets this lending relates to;
    -for the assets in Russia/India, Anglo are trying to say part of 2.3bn was for these properties, these are not included in the 445m;
    -Quinn is not 'disobeying' a Court order; he was found in contempt; Anglo via the Court have asked him to take corrective actions. Quinn is now saying he can no longer fix or take many of those corrective actions;

    I think the contempt is a bit of a side issue.

    The Quinns owe money. 445m undisputed and 2.3bn disputed. You supporters all keep calling for a fast track hearing re the 2.3bn, you want to hear the outcome of that before youll comment. Do you think it appropriate that the Quinns move any assets out of the reach of the state before a judgment was given as to the legitimacy of the loans?? The Quinns had a freezing order in place, regardless of what loans the properties related to they had no right to start selling multi million euro developments for a laptop and pocket change. Their position and your support are indefensible.
    The main issue is if Anglo lent for share support, which I believe its now generally accepted that they did. If Anglo lent to the Quinns for CfDs; the loans Anglo are relying on are illegal and the security is not valid.

    And Quinn used this money to pay off calls on his CFDs. He was already on the hook to the markets, this just transferred his liability to Angli. It's illegality should not be used as an excuse to wipe clean his gambling debts, because at the end of the day we pick up that tab.
    Furthermore,
    - you asked in an earlier post why would Anglo encourage people (Quinn) to buy shares. In 2007 the Anglo board had more then 100m of shares between them. They were encouraging every broker/investment fund in Ireland and aboard that their bank was solid and to buy. They obviously didn't think Quinn would buy so much through CfDs. But when they found out he had 25%, they didn't want him to sell, as disposing of the 25% CfD shareholding would have collapsed Anglo, therefore wiping out the 100m of shares held by the directors. Hence they decided to cover the margin calls, which is in breach of both S60 and the Market Abuse regulations.

    I'm not sure whether you are purposely confusing shares and CFDs. If tou have shares and the share price falls you take a hit. If youve bet on shares going a certain way then you owe a price you agreed on and could end up paying far more than the share loss. All banks want shareholders, they do not want a overexposed idiot buying up 25% of the bank through CFDs. This means the shares aren't mobile, they can't easily be returned to the buy/sell market without everyone noticing that someone just let a quarter of Anglo go. You'd have a point if Quinn was some doorstep per poor old woman who got cold called and pressure conned into purchasing some dodgy financial product. This was the richest man in Ireland with apt opportunity and resources to get independent financial advice. He continued to build his stake in Anglo for 2 years. He made his bed. The illegal loans you don't want him to repay saved him from his debts.

    -
    the worst part is, I believe Drumm and Fitz would have got approval from the DoF and Central Bank for these loans; in order to cover their own arse. This explains why Anglo are driving a massive publicity spin against the Quinns, as the Anglo, the DoF and the CB are trying to cover up the truth.

    You are living in lala land mate. If you think that the previous execs in Anglo, the current board, the previous and current governments and the judiciary are all in some cover up you are mad. Why hasn't Drumm or Fitzpatrick spilled the beans on the government then? Even if that's the case, scandal it may be, why shouldn't Quinn pay back the money he used to cover his market calls? He benefitted from these loans.
    - developers and other borrowers particularly with NAMA have moved assets,

    sources and examples please.
    NONE of them have been chased as hard as Quinn or received a tenth of the publicity he has got, which suggests there is something Anglo/the State are trying to cover up.

    Hint. If you're trying to cover up something it's better to pay off people who could don you in rather then pursue them for loans and embarrass and infuriate them.
    The last think the DoF and CB would want, when seeking to restore the countries international financial credibility, is to have found to have aided and abetted Market Abuse.

    There is a lot more to this story than moving assets.

    You'd think the last thing they'd want is to be found to be covering up such behaviour. Read Fintan O'Tooles article again. Absolutely delusional stuff


  • #175
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    What is your argument? Really? Because all you've sputed are ignorant misunderstandings based in Quinns arguments (the Quinns have been found to be economical with the truth - e.g. Their account of Quinn Insurance)

    Are you suggesting that Angli started lending Quinn money in 2005 to buy their shares on the CFD market? Are you suggesting they wanted him to acquire 28% of the bank? Are you suggesting that because of disputed debts, Quinn should be supported in his actions of defiance and non-cooperation with the undisputed 455m?

    All you've done is wave towards the CFDs which you've no idea about.
    I have kept my points as simple as possible. If you still cannot understand the simple point I am making then you should really look at the whole issue again. And please try to stop putting other peoples arguments forward as mine- the above CFD reference is the third time you have done this.
    Laminations wrote: »
    but I also would like to see the courts verdict on the 'contested' loans.
    Why? Would that then allow him to disobey the law? How is that relevant to his actions and behaviour towards the courts? Seeing as the court has given its verdict on Quinns cooperation re the 455m why would you be any more inclinded to respect what the court says with regards the disputed debt?
    So you want to see Quinn obey the law on the one hand. But on the other you don't see how the court case for the contested loans is relevant?
    Thats some turn around and quite ridiculous to be honest. The 2 cases are intrinsically linked by Quinns actions if by nothing else.
    What makes you believe that the 2 cases have no link?


  • #176
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,879 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Anyone see the Vincent Brown interview?

    Sean Quinn;

    Cutest whore on the Island?

    So used to getting his own way for years that he genuinely thinks he should get a way with his wrongdoings?

    Stupid and greedy?

    Maybe he's all three. One thing is sure, he's deluded, unbelievably deluded, this 'Dublin media' and rural v urban spin he's pushing will do him no favours either, I can see support waining for him in the future as the f€ithful fans of Q€inn realise he's wrong.


  • #177
    Ramshackled
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭Ramshackled


    Laminations wrote: »

    Anglo didn't encourage Sean Quinn money to build this stake
    Anglo Irish Bank was horrified when it discovered the scale of Sean Quinn's stake because they knew they could both go down if the full story was public.


    Laminations, do you believe this statement and if so can you please explain how the bank did not know that Quinn was buying up all these CFDs?


  • #178
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    So you want to see Quinn obey the law on the one hand. But on the other you don't see how the court case for the contested loans is relevant?
    Thats some turn around and quite ridiculous to be honest. The 2 cases are intrinsically linked by Quinns actions if by nothing else.
    What makes you believe that the 2 cases have no link?

    the second case happening or not happening provided no justification for his actions. The properties are disputed which means he has no clear cut ownership rights on them and no right to move them out of his control and out of the reach of IVRC. It is that simple. While the second case is important in clearing up his and his families (in particular) liabilities, it does not excuse him disobeying court orders. Do you think it does? Do you want to tell me how you think it's relevant? Do you want to tell me what you even think its about?


  • #179
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Ramshackled wrote: »
    Laminations, do you believe this statement and if so can you please explain how the bank did not know that Quinn was buying up all these CFDs?

    With CFDs you hold positions with brokers. Quinn was trading through a London broker but likely using a few as they have a max amount they'll hold. CFDs aren't the physical shares, they are the promise to buy shares at a certain price, you don't put all the money down up front, just a deposit. If the share price increases between your bet and when the CFD is due you buy at the lower agreed price and then sell at the increased price making a nice profit. Quinn started this in 2005 and was likely seeing his bets make him nice profits as the share price for Anglo rose, he doubled down in 2007 and ramped up his bets...

    Read the timeline and the thread from askaboutmoney.

    And even if Anglo did know, and encouraged it, how does that make a difference? He was not a desperate elderly person who was pressured into doing this, he was the richest man in Ireland, a shrewd entrepreneur who could afford independent financial advice. My fried told me Apple shares are a good investment. If I was to turn around and remortgage my house to stick it on them I couldn't very well blame him of the share price ranked. The Anglo share price tanked because like a lot of things it was based on the property ponzi scheme. When various big name banks highly invested in property started to fall, Anglos days were up. Yes it was a terribly run bank with various issues around lending practice etc but both the Anglo execs and Quinn bet on the property bubble to continue. And Quinn can't really point the finger when it comes to terribly run companies...


  • #180
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Ramshackled wrote: »
    Laminations, do you believe this statement and if so can you please explain how the bank did not know that Quinn was buying up all these CFDs?

    If above is TL;DR can you tell me why it matters to Quinns liability whether Anglo knew what he was doing or not?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Very good detail here

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0203/1224311175614.html

    It's quite clear Quinn built up his CFD holding unbeknownst to Anglo - on advice from PWC it seems. He then asked for loans to cover his margin calls and money "sucked out" of the Quinn Group. These loans were more than forthcoming as it was mutually beneficial to prevent a share price collapse.

    I always thought it pathetic in the Merchant of Venice how Antonio and Bassanio weasel out of their debts to Shylock on a technicality. Here we have someone who gladly accepted illegal loans to prop up his companies and now refuses to pay them back cos they were illegal. Pathetic.


  • #182
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    the second case happening or not happening provided no justification for his actions. The properties are disputed which means he has no clear cut ownership rights on them and no right to move them out of his control and out of the reach of IVRC. It is that simple. While the second case is important in clearing up his and his families (in particular) liabilities, it does not excuse him disobeying court orders. Do you think it does? Do you want to tell me how you think it's relevant? Do you want to tell me what you even think its about?

    If the loans are ruled to be illegal then any seizure of assets as recovery of these loans is of course effected. Whether you like it or not that would change the picture in many peoples eyes. My opinion is that its not a good excuse for disobeying court orders but I would also recognise that it does provide a moral justification. This is what you are refusing to recognise which is a bit foolhardy IMO. Take it down to a personal level- If a bank was threatening to sieze your house based on something that you thought was false, would you not try and protect yourself?


  • #183
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    Very good detail here

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0203/1224311175614.html

    It's quite clear Quinn built up his CFD holding unbeknownst to Anglo - on advice from PWC it seems. He then asked for loans to cover his margin calls and money "sucked out" of the Quinn Group. These loans were more than forthcoming as it was mutually beneficial to prevent a share price collapse.

    I always thought it pathetic in the Merchant of Venice how Antonio and Bassanio weasel out of their debts to Shylock on a technicality. Here we have someone who gladly accepted illegal loans to prop up his companies and now refuses to pay them back cos they were illegal. Pathetic.

    Do you understand the basis on which Quinn believes that these loans are illegal?

    ??? Please demonstrate this...


  • #184
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    If the loans are ruled to be illegal then any seizure of assets as recovery of these loans is of course effected. Whether you like it or not that would change the picture in many peoples eyes. My opinion is that its not a good excuse for disobeying court orders but I would also recognise that it does provide a moral justification. This is what you are refusing to recognise which is a bit foolhardy IMO. Take it down to a personal level- If a bank was threatening to sieze your house based on something that you thought was false, would you not try and protect yourself?

    Oh I get you know...yes a moral justification. Like Peter Darragh Quinn leaving the jurisdiction because if he was found guilty he would be arrested. You cannot presume or preempt the judgement of a court like that. What if the court finds the Quinns are liable? They've already moved the assets! And please, they are not seizing family homes, Quinn lives quite comfortably in his 3m mansion in Ballyconnell. This isn't self preservation, it's delusion and refusal to accept he made a costly mistake.


  • #185
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you understand the basis on which Quinn believes that these loans are illegal?

    ??? Please demonstrate this...

    Yes. Anglos share price was falling. These loans propped up Quinn and (temporarily) stopped Anglo share price collapsing. The loans interfered in the market.

    Can you recognise that the Quinns must have known the legality of the loans at the time and were the primary beneficiaries of these loans as they used them to cover margin calls?


  • #186
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    Oh I get you know...yes a moral justification. Like Peter Darragh Quinn leaving the jurisdiction because if he was found guilty he would be arrested. You cannot presume or preempt the judgement of a court like that.

    He did.
    It is however morally wrong to do so IMO. But you don't think morals are part of this!
    Laminations wrote: »
    What if the court finds the Quinns are liable? They've already moved the assets!

    Which i say was wrong
    Laminations wrote: »
    they are not seizing family homes, Quinn lives quite comfortably in his 3m mansion in Ballyconnell. This isn't self preservation, it's delusion and refusal to accept he made a costly mistake.
    You misunderstand my point- I was not referring to the Quinns house.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    He did.
    It is however morally wrong to do so IMO. But you don't think morals are part of this!

    Which i say was wrong

    You misunderstand my point- I was not referring to the Quinns house.

    So its morally wrong for Peter Darragh Quinn to preempt a court judgement and take actions protecting himself crom an unfavourable outcome. Okay, good, we're agreed on that. So the Quinns moving assets is preempting the case regarding the legitimacy of the 2.3bn, and so like you state here is morally wrong (just to correct you I never said morals had nothing to do with this).

    So if them moving assets is wrong how does it provide a moral justification?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    My opinion is that its not a good excuse for disobeying court orders but I would also recognise that it does provide a moral justification.

    And if it is wrong to move assets how is the judgement related to the disputed 2.3bn going to change that? They still have preempts and disobeyed the courts. Does it retrospectively make their actions okay? If I'm a suspect in a murder charge but I didn't do it is it okay for me to flee because in the end I'll be proven innocent?

    Your arguments contradict themselves.
    Is the Quinn family moving assets beyond the reach of the state justified?

    And when you get a chance
    Laminations wrote: »
    Can you recognise that the Quinns must have known the legality of the loans at the time and were the primary beneficiaries of these loans as they used them to cover margin calls?


  • #188
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Originally Posted by Laminations View Post
    Can you recognise that the Quinns must have known the legality of the loans at the time and were the primary beneficiaries of these loans as they used them to cover margin calls?
    I would imagine that all parties involved in the loans knew what they were involved in was dodgy. Whether that means the loans are illegal is before the courts and is quite a technical issue so guessing what the decision will be is pointless.
    Laminations wrote: »
    So its morally wrong for Peter Darragh Quinn to preempt a court judgement and take actions protecting himself crom an unfavourable outcome. Okay, good, we're agreed on that. So the Quinns moving assets is preempting the case regarding the legitimacy of the 2.3bn, and so like you state here is morally wrong (just to correct you I never said morals had nothing to do with this).

    So if them moving assets is wrong how does it provide a moral justification?
    Whether it does or not is dependant on the contested loans case and the courts decision on that. If that case finds that the loans were illegal it means quinn owes Anglo circa .5 billion as opposed to 2.8 billion. If that is what the court finds then it would have made the debt last year affordable to Quinn and he would not have needed to hide assets. Work out the rest yourself.
    Laminations wrote: »
    And if it is wrong to move assets how is the judgement related to the disputed 2.3bn going to change that? They still have preempts and disobeyed the courts. Does it retrospectively make their actions okay? If I'm a suspect in a murder charge but I didn't do it is it okay for me to flee because in the end I'll be proven innocent?

    Seriously- Great example. You answer it.
    If you think that there is no chance of anything other than a guilty verdict but you have the chance to escape (and you as the suspect are sure you are innocent). What would you do?
    A- Stay and take the guilty verdict and death sentence, or
    B- Go on the run- wait 2 years until proof that you are innocent comes out and then resurface.

    A or B (did I mention great example...)


  • #189
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would imagine that all parties involved in the loans knew what they were involved in was dodgy. Whether that means the loans are illegal is before the courts and is quite a technical issue so guessing what the decision will be is pointless.

    But the Quinns have guessed or preempts the verdict. It's odd the way all apologists (be they for Bertie, Lowry, Callely) try to weasel out on legal technicalities and only recognise the letter of the law definition of right and wrong. Is it morally right that Quinn takes money (a loan) and benefits from that by using it to pay off debts on the CFD market) and then refuses to pay it back because a corollary of his actions was illegally propping up share prices. Is it right that Quinn benefits from that arrangement but accepts no consequence?

    Whether it does or not is dependant on the contested loans case and the courts decision on that. If that case finds that the loans were illegal it means quinn owes Anglo circa .5 billion as opposed to 2.8 billion. If that is what the court finds then it would have made the debt last year affordable to Quinn and he would not have needed to hide assets. Work out the rest yourself.

    So it IS morally justifiable to preempt a court judgement? And to you the morality of a decision now is dependant on some future court decision? So if the courts find in favour of Quinn then moving the assets was justified but if they don't then it wasn't? So you think him moving disputed assets is justified or unjustified? You said Peter Darragh Quinn was wrong to skip court and the country. What of the appeal reverses the contempt judgement? Are his actions then retrospectively morally justified. I suppose you'd support a father who absconds with his kids in the middle of a divorce case before the disputed custody issue has been resolved, just in case it could go against him? Your argument is morally bankrupt. It's a minefield of contradictions and misunderstanding.

    Seriously- Great example. You answer it.
    If you think that there is no chance of anything other than a guilty verdict but you have the chance to escape (and you as the suspect are sure you are innocent). What would you do?
    A- Stay and take the guilty verdict and death sentence, or
    B- Go on the run- wait 2 years until proof that you are innocent comes out and then resurface.

    A or B (did I mention great example...)

    But the courts are there to establish guilt. You are saying that some people are above the law and can decide themselves whether to accept judgement by the legal system. While I certainly have criticised the courts in terms of inappropriate and lenient sentencing I've never held them in such contempt. You are intimating that I (or Quinn in this case) wouldn't get a fair trial. Similar line to the **** being spouted by Peter Quinn Snr. So Michael Lynn who is on the run and hasn't yet been tried is morally justified, once he believes he is innocent? This take it or leave it attitude for the courts is symptomatic of the lack of respect people have for the state that Fintan O'Toole wrote about. My god, your head is firmly stuck in the sand.


  • #190
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would imagine that all parties involved in the loans knew what they were involved in was dodgy. Whether that means the loans are illegal is before the courts and is quite a technical issue so guessing what the decision will be is pointless.




    I would ask why Quinn moved tha assets if he feels he is so right about the loans being illegal? Do you think that the Judges would not have considered all this before deciding that the Quinns were in contempt and should not have moved the assets. Basically there is no law for the mighty Quinn, unless its one he can use to get his way.


  • #191
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I would ask why Quinn moved tha assets if he feels he is so right about the loans being illegal? Do you think that the Judges would not have considered all this before deciding that the Quinns were in contempt and should not have moved the assets.
    It seems to me that the case of the contested loans should be ruled on first.
    That would seem logical to me.
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Basically there is no law for the mighty Quinn, unless its one he can use to get his way.
    Maybe so- Most people try to get their own way in life. I don't see how you think there is no law for him though, his son is in prison and he will be soon also.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    But the Quinns have guessed or preempts the verdict. It's odd the way all apologists (be they for Bertie, Lowry, Callely) try to weasel out on legal technicalities and only recognise the letter of the law definition of right and wrong. Is it morally right that Quinn takes money (a loan) and benefits from that by using it to pay off debts on the CFD market) and then refuses to pay it back because a corollary of his actions was illegally propping up share prices. Is it right that Quinn benefits from that arrangement but accepts no consequence?
    No consequences? Are you taking the P?
    Laminations wrote: »
    So it IS morally justifiable to preempt a court judgement? And to you the morality of a decision now is dependant on some future court decision? So if the courts find in favour of Quinn then moving the assets was justified but if they don't then it wasn't? So you think him moving disputed assets is justified or unjustified? You said Peter Darragh Quinn was wrong to skip court and the country. What of the appeal reverses the contempt judgement? Are his actions then retrospectively morally justified. I suppose you'd support a father who absconds with his kids in the middle of a divorce case before the disputed custody issue has been resolved, just in case it could go against him? Your argument is morally bankrupt. It's a minefield of contradictions and misunderstanding.
    You are mixing many different issues and you continue to state what you think my opinion is. If you think that helps your argument then thats your business but I would prefer you quote what I say rather than 'interpret' it. I have answered your questions up to now. (thats not meant to be snotty but you continue to attribute opinions that I have not stated to me, I'm patient and excuse this occasionally but this is the fourth time now)
    Laminations wrote: »
    Similar line to the **** being spouted by Peter Quinn Snr. So Michael Lynn who is on the run and hasn't yet been tried is morally justified, once he believes he is innocent? This take it or leave it attitude for the courts is symptomatic of the lack of respect people have for the state that Fintan O'Toole wrote about. My god, your head is firmly stuck in the sand.
    Did Fintan write that, I take it all back so...
    Seriously is O'Toole now infallable!

    You didnt answer A or B to the question yet. Don't be afraid of hanging yourself!
    Laminations wrote: »
    But the courts are there to establish guilt. You are saying that some people are above the law and can decide themselves whether to accept judgement by the legal system. While I certainly have criticised the courts in terms of inappropriate and lenient sentencing I've never held them in such contempt. You are intimating that I (or Quinn in this case) wouldn't get a fair trial.
    What are you talking about- I didnt intimate anything, I stated it quite clearly as a hypothetical situation. Quite clearly.

    Laminations wrote: »
    You are saying that some people are above the law and can decide themselves whether to accept judgement by the legal system.
    More of this> Please quote where I said this, or alternatively withdraw it.


  • #193
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    It seems to me that the case of the contested loans should be ruled on first.
    That would seem logical to me.


    The learned Judges would have considered that I am sure and Quinn's counsel would surely have raised it? It is clearly not an issue at the minute, as Quinn went against the rulings of the court....a conscious decision to move assets that were in the domain of the courts, effectively acting like a crook IMO.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Maybe so- Most people try to get their own way in life. I don't see how you think there is no law for him though, his son is in prison and he will be soon also.

    Yes people like to get their own way, but most of us are not that pig headed and selfish and would not defy the Courts. His arrogance and conceit is breathtaking. The fate of his son was in the hands of Quinn. He had several chances to put matters right, but chose money over his son it looks like.


  • #194
    mdoyler2
    Registered Users Posts: 34 ✭mdoyler2


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Laminations wrote: »
    Very good detail here

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0203/1224311175614.html

    It's quite clear Quinn built up his CFD holding unbeknownst to Anglo - on advice from PWC it seems. He then asked for loans to cover his margin calls and money "sucked out" of the Quinn Group. These loans were more than forthcoming as it was mutually beneficial to prevent a share price collapse.

    I always thought it pathetic in the Merchant of Venice how Antonio and Bassanio weasel out of their debts to Shylock on a technicality. Here we have someone who gladly accepted illegal loans to prop up his companies and now refuses to pay them back cos they were illegal. Pathetic.

    Do you understand the basis on which Quinn believes that these loans are illegal?

    ??? Please demonstrate this...



    1. S60 of the Companies Act - a company can not lent for its own shares
    2. Market Manipulation under the Market Abuse Directive
    3. The Quinn/IBRC Charleton Judgement Feb 2012, the Bank should not profit from its own illegality
    4. The recent arrests by the Gardai, over providing loans for share support. Notice they haven't arrested any Quinn's only Anglo exes.

    There appears to be some confusion over CFD v Shares held in Anglo; by Anglo propping up the CFD position it artificially inflated the banks share price; as somebody (counterparty/broker) would have had to hold the actual share. Therefore, if Quinn closed out his 28% position (ie if he could not meet his margin call) it would have had the same effect as a straight forward sale of 28% of the banks shares ie the banks share price would have collapsed. This is why Anglo insisted on supporting the CFD position, as had they not advanced the money the bank would have collapsed (sooner!).


  • #195
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    The learned Judges would have considered that I am sure and Quinn's counsel would surely have raised it? It is clearly not an issue at the minute, as Quinn went against the rulings of the court....a conscious decision to move assets that were in the domain of the courts, effectively acting like a crook IMO.
    .
    Granted, I don't contend that he was correct to do this. You might also be correct with your first sentence though the caveat is that they have not thrown the case out.
    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes people like to get their own way, but most of us are not that pig headed and selfish and would not defy the Courts. His arrogance and conceit is breathtaking. The fate of his son was in the hands of Quinn. He had several chances to put matters right, but chose money over his son it looks like.
    Is he in a position to put matters right any more?


  • #196
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    No consequences? Are you taking the P?

    If they are contesting they owe 2.3bn for the loans they received and they win (which is what I expect they are hoping) what consequences do they have in relation to that 2.3bn? Im sure you are confusing other consequenses he faces as a result of other idiotic actions but im talkibg about those directly related to using 2.3bn to cover margin calls. If he and his family dont have to repay it then what are the consequenses? Do you think morally that he should pay it back since he borrowed it and he used it to pay his debts?

    As for misquoting you, you keep changing your damn opinion.

    Here's where I am, regardless of the decision on the 2.3bn there is no moral justification (especially not a retrospective one) for Quinn to preempt the court judgements and move disputed assets out of the reach of creditors. You don't decide whether you'll abide by court orders or convictions, you don't get to say you don't like the outcome so you're not cooperating (whether it be moving assets after a freezing order or skipping court and leaving the jurisdiction after a committal order). As for your A or B choice, I'd go on the run in that hypothetical situation as I'd be in a position where I couldn't trust an obviously corrupt or incompetent justice system. That situation would occur in some tinpot country. Me choosing to go fugitive in your hypothetical does not equate with Peter Darragh Quinn going fugitive or the Quinns ignoring the court, unless you are making some accusation about the justice system here being corrupt and Quinn not getting a fair trial. Do you want to make that accusation?

    Your argument is logically and morally inept, you've flip flopped between saying Peter Darragh Quinn is wrong but right and Quinn is wrong but may be right if a future case rules in his families favour.

    The way I see it Quinn has gotten off lightly so far. Hopefully they'll take the gloves off and slap him up with the criminal charges he deserves - being party to billion euro fraudulent loans, criminal negligence in relation to his management of Quinn insurance and a charge concerning his using company monies to fund personal events like family weddings and then claiming tax back.


  • #197
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    His arrogance and conceit is breathtaking.

    You can say that again. Hear his latest on the uncovering of his gross mismanagement of Quinn Insurance? The administrators are lying. What a deluded man he is, wallowing in denial

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0808/quinn-describes-administration-cost-as-shocking-business.html


  • #198
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    mdoyler2 wrote: »
    1. S60 of the Companies Act - a company can not lent for its own shares
    2. Market Manipulation under the Market Abuse Directive
    3. The Quinn/IBRC Charleton Judgement Feb 2012, the Bank should not profit from its own illegality
    4. The recent arrests by the Gardai, over providing loans for share support. Notice they haven't arrested any Quinn's only Anglo exes.

    There appears to be some confusion over CFD v Shares held in Anglo; by Anglo propping up the CFD position it artificially inflated the banks share price; as somebody (counterparty/broker) would have had to hold the actual share. Therefore, if Quinn closed out his 28% position (ie if he could not meet his margin call) it would have had the same effect as a straight forward sale of 28% of the banks shares ie the banks share price would have collapsed. This is why Anglo insisted on supporting the CFD position, as had they not advanced the money the bank would have collapsed (sooner!).

    Yes I know all that. What makes you think I dispute that? I am sure the loans were illegal, I just don't think the illegality of the loans should remove Quinns liability as he was the primary beneficiary.

    If the loans were illegal then they shouldn't have been given. If they weren't given then Quinn couldn't have used the money to cover his losses, he'd have to cover them with his own money (which he initially was doing by taking money out of his companies). So Quinn should be exposed to the full losses. This should be recouped by means of a fine for Quinn for using a criminal transaction to pay his debts. You think it's fair that he pays none of it back after spending it?


  • #199
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mdoyler2 wrote: »
    4. The recent arrests by the Gardai, over providing loans for share support. Notice they haven't arrested any Quinn's only Anglo exes.

    The investigation into this and 3 or 4 other strands is an ongoing and lengthy investigation by the Gardai. The charges against Fitzpatrick and the other 2 is only the first strand. You may find that what the Quinns did (attempting to hold up the share price ) along with the Maple 10 is a very serious matter. This investigation could take another 3 years it is so complex. So it may be a case of from the pan into the fire?


  • #200
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Granted, I don't contend that he was correct to do this. You might also be correct with your first sentence though the caveat is that they have not thrown the case out.


    Is he in a position to put matters right any more?

    Yes. I do believe he is in a position to put matters right. He can reverse much of the assets transfer and co-operate with the courts. He ran his businesses into the ground. He appears to be reckless and deluded. He will have to face up to his mistakes and not continue to play the naive little bumpkin screwed over by the boys at Anglo. He was one of the boys at Anglo. Ignorance is no defence( or accepted) for most people when it comes to the law, but Quinn believes he is a special case. Hundreds of conscious decisions he made and he was duped every time? Lol.


  • #201
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Laminations wrote: »
    If they are contesting they owe 2.3bn for the loans they received and they win (which is what I expect they are hoping) what consequences do they have in relation to that 2.3bn? Im sure you are confusing other consequenses he faces as a result of other idiotic actions but im talkibg about those directly related to using 2.3bn to cover margin calls. If he and his family dont have to repay it then what are the consequenses? Do you think morally that he should pay it back since he borrowed it and he used it to pay his debts?
    If the court rules that the loans were legal then he should pay back and has no leg to stand on. If it rules that he was given the loans under false pretences then I would keep a more open mind. What I have said so far is that this judgement should be made ASAP, you are the one who claimed it was not relevant. Quote Here:
    Laminations wrote: »

    How is this lending (which was done to save Anglo and Quinn) which Quinn knew was illegal at the time relevant to his debts of 455m??

    Laminations wrote: »
    As for misquoting you, you keep changing your damn opinion.
    You are posting here long enough to know how to quote pieces of text.

    Also I note you were unable to answer the question I asked of your own example (post 188). Can I take this as answer B from you?

    Also:
    Originally Posted by Laminations View Post
    You are saying that some people are above the law and can decide themselves whether to accept judgement by the legal system.
    Can I take it that you have withdrawn this or do you wish to quote where I said it?

    I came to this discussion to show that it was'nt as clear as you were trying to paint it. You are currently misquoting me, refusing to answer simple questions as the answer goes against your argument and seem quite mixed up about what is being said. Would you accept that it is not straightforward?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement