Sean Quinn avoids jail

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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:

First, I asked whether you think it right that he borrowed money which he used to pay debts and is now disputing paying it back as the way he spent the loan also interfered with share price. I didn't ask if it was legal, I've agreed it's likely illegal. I asked do you think it is morally right.

Second, I still maintain it is irrelevant to the debt of 455m as that is undisputed. It's like owing two people Peter and Paul. You agree you owe Peter but dispute you owe Paul. How is any court ruling on your disputed debt to Paul relevant to you paying back Peter? The contempt surrounds Quinns behaviour re the undisputed loans.

You are posting here long enough to know how to quote pieces of text.

Its not a problem with my ability to quote, it's your opinion shifting like sand.

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?

Yes B, that was quite clear from my answer. It doesn't relate to the Quinns situation though unless you want to assert that the justice system is corrupt and they cant get a fair trial. Also what evidence do you think will emerge that will exonerate Peter Darragh Quinn of his contempt re undisputed 455m? He was caught on tape saying he is happy to lie in court.

Can I take it that you have withdrawn this or do you wish to quote where I said it?

Your position is that the Quinns are morally justified in ignoring the decisions of the court (freezing orders, contempt findings, committal orders) as they are waiting for another judgement that will give them some retrospective vindication. You don't get to choose which judgements you accept or ignore.

Would you accept that it is not straightforward?

What is IT? You've conflated the issues throughout. The issue of them owing the 455m is straightforward. The issue of them being dishonest, deceitful and contemptuous is straightforward. The issue of Peter Darragh Quinn being a fugitive is straighforward. The issue of the Quinns mismanagement of Quinn Insurance is straighforward. The issue of 2.3bn being lent for 1) Quinn to pay margin calls and 2) Anglo to maintain share price is straightforward. The legality of it is in question. Whether he should legally pay it back (thats the 2.3bn not the 455m) is therefore in question. Whether he should morally pay it back, as he used it to pay HIS debts, is a question I've asked you and one you haven't answered.

These straightforward issues are accepted by everyone but the most obtuse Quinn supporters. The issues under debate do not change the other issues.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

And I answered that the moral right in this case would most likely be with the courts. I wrote that clearly in post 201.

So what does that mean? The courts don't decide issues of morality. Are you saying if the loans are illegal he is morally right not to pay any of the 2.3bn back even though he spent it on his debts? And then you queried my description of 'no consequences' for him re these loans?

If the debt were 455 he would have most likely been able to deal with that- that is my understanding and open to correction. Do we know the value of assets transferred?

The debt is 455m. Whether he can deal with it or not is irrelevant. If I owe Peter 200 and I dispute I owe Paul 1000 I don't get to hide my money from Peter. Quinn was found guilty of obstructing the repayment of 455m. What's your point? Is it that Quinn himself will decide what he'll repay after the ruling on the 2.3bn? 'well if I don't owe the 2.3bn you'll get your 455m but if I do owe it then I'll pay it all....but wait I can't because I've moved assets I was told not to'

Example?
There are similarities, that is clear and you took the Sean Quinn answer.

Well your views towards the morality around Quinns and Peter Darragh Quinns lack of cooperation seems to flip flop. There are no similarities, if you think there are spell them out.

I have expressed on several posts what the Quinns believe and also answered your questions on what I think. You are mixing the 2 up (unintentionally I believe) and this is perhaps where confusion is arising?

Maybe it's because you won't give your clear view and for the whole time have been defending Quinn. I'm sure Quinn believes a lot of things, he is deluded though. Arguing on the basis of what Quinn believes to be the truth against what the courts have found to be the truth shows a lack of respect for the courts.

But heres where you are wrong. I would strongly argue that I am not a Quinn supporter, in fact I resent the damage done to the taxpayer and insurance payers which both affect me personally. There are 2 sides to most arguments and from looking at the facts behind both sides of this I don't believe it is as simple as most media seems to. Some of the media coverage is simplified to the extreme in an extension of the general tabloidification of all news sources. Quinn is clearly wrong in alot of this issue but a single fall guy seems unlikely also, particularly when other Anglo facts are considered.

You are not a Quinn supporter?
Ok so your opinions here, not what you think Quinn believes
Was he wrong to move assets?
Is he morally wrong to try and renege on loans which he used to clear personal debts and which he knew the legality of at the time?
Was Peter Darragh Quinn wrong to abscond?
Did he mismanage Quinn insurance?

You say he is wrong in a lot of this? Can you clearly demarcate the points where you think he is right? Also I think it is your simplistic reading of the media coverage that's the problem since you think Quinn is some lone fall guy. The media has only recently focused on Quinn. Dozens of people have been bankrupted due to debts. Anglo execs are facing criminal charges which we are only starting to see emerge now and there will be a banking enquiry to look at government actions. Quinn is bringing the media attention on himself by playing the victim in total denial of his wrongdoings. If he didn't frustrate his creditors and the courts by moving around assets and having his family lie in court he'd not be the story he is.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The case of the 'contested loans' should precede the attempt to seize assets.

I had asked you where you thought Quinn was right. Your response above does not answer that.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Try reading the points I have made rather than misinterpreting them (again).

Ok. Where do you think Quinn has acted correctly? And why does it matter in terms of repayment of the 455m that a decision is made on the 2.3 bn first?

I asked were they personal loans, as opposed to business loans. In case you don't see where that is going its in regard of guarantees.

Is it morally right that someone takes a loan (regardless of whether it's through his business or personal), uses the money to pay off personal debts, and then tries to wriggle out of repayment of the loan? Can you accept Quinn benefitted from this money?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I presume you see the difference between Debts of the Quinn group, and personal debts.
If so I would need you to explain more clearly how he has done the above. That is fair request.

Are you seriously questioning that the CFD debts were personal debts of the Quinns?

From here

he engaged in reckless gambling and everyone else in the country is now paying the price for his arrogant stupidity. Quinn didn’t just invest badly in buying Anglo Irish Bank shares with his own spare cash: he borrowed excessively to do so and he also borrowed from the Quinn Insurance company without the relevant permission from the authorities. He hid the extent of his share-buying too – as the Central Bank would have investigated his suitability to own more than 10% of the bank had it known about it – and then was allowed to become involved in a highly dubious transaction to sell some of the shares to try and reduce his exposure to heavy losses.

They were personal CFDs and so personal debts (this is a generally accepted fact) paid for by siphoning money from his companies and then borrowing money from Anglo. The Quinns benefitted from these loans as they covered the margin calls on the CFDs. Do you accept that?

mdoyler2 wrote: »

Laminations,
-you are so far off with your so called 'facts'
-Sean didn't borrow a cent from Anglo personally or through a corporate entity, as he didn't own any companies since 2002. He did however personally guarantee all corporate debts of his children's companies. There is a huge difference here.

Did Quinn meet with Drumm and Fitzpatrick in the Ardboyne hotel to disclose his CFD position? How did Quinn pay the margin calls on his CFD gambling from 2006 onwards?

-NO court as ruled on the validity of the debt weather it be 455m, 2.3bn or 2.8bn. Justice Dunnes judgement was in relation to contempt of Court, nothing else. She was asked to rule on 'when' something was done; not as you suggest the validity of debt.

Never suggested the court ruled in the validity of any debt. I said it gave judgement on the veracity of accounts. Is Quinn now disputing the 455m? If its not disputed what's your point?

-The documentation the new management are relying on to enforce the Quinn loans, like the Accounts of Anglo was blatantly fraudaelent.

Source please

-As the bank was in breach of s60 of the CA and the market abuse regulations: the loans are invalid. This means any security given is null and void. Therefore, Anglo are in control of companies they shouldn't be. READ the Charleton judgement; 'the bank shouldn't profit from its OWN illegality.'
-just because the DoF and CB where stupid enough to guarantee and nationalise Anglo; doesn't mean they can disregard its past history and enforce blantaly fraudaelent loans; that individuals are now been charged criminally over.

Did Quinn and his family in any way benefit from those loans? What was the money used for? The Anglo parties privy to these loans are being charged as they were fraudulent. What's the consequence for Quinn and co.? Or what consequence do you think he should face?

-you keep mentioning that he should pay it back,

Morally yes, legally the 2.3bn is to be ruled upon.

1) if it's illegal

That's an important word. If. Quinn has preempted this judgement by moving assets. See the problem here?

it doesn't have to paid back and Anglo has no write to the security given 2) Quinn tried to work with Anglo despite what the bank had done in the past, yet they tried to go behind his back and take everything illegally;

Everything illegally? Seems the courts views so far has been mostly criticsl of the Quinns behaviour. If the courts find that the loans were legal (or that Quinns have a liability) will they accept that?

Look my point has been related to the uncontested 455m and you have continually tried to drag in the other 2.3 bn. Regardless of a judgement in this Quinn has no right to move assets. My comments on the 2.3bn are about moral obligations - in aware the legal obligations are yet to be decided and I agree the loans are most likely illegal. But I recognise that the Quinns benefitted greatly from these loans.

-the reasons we are in this mess is solely because of Anglo; the new board and government can dress it up all they like; but Anglo was the one that cooked it books and cost the state 30bn

Thats the Quinn equivalent of a FFer blaming Lehmans. Total rubbish. Really if we've gone this far down the rabbit hole and you cannot see Quinns share of the blame with his CFD betting, his misusing monies from his companies, his mismanagement of Quinn Insurance and his uncooperative behaviour with repaying undisputed debts.....

I'm stepping off this delusional train.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I take this as you admitting that you do not keep an open mind in reference to the ongoing debacle. Dangerous stuff, less than mocking someone with an open mind you should bear in mind dangers of not keeping an open mind based on a courts decision. I did realise you were stuck in a closed mindset before this but thanks for making it clear.

Just before I leave the discussion I will point out the similarities between that type of 'I'm right, your wrong' attitude and the man being discussed in this thread. I think its called irony!
Bye for now :pac:

Your argument has been rubbish from the start. Keeping an open mind in the face of court descriptions like those below is some mental feat

THE QUINN FAMILY have presided over a scheme of mesmeric complexity that “reeked of dishonesty and sharp practice”, the judge presiding over the commercial court said today.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said that he was having to deal with an increasing number of cases involving “national and international fraud, sharp practice, chicanery and dishonesty”. However, he had never seen anything on the scale demonstrated by Sean Quinn and his family.

I suppose you have an open mind about John Gilligan or Larry Murphy too? Far from an open mind you fail to accept the views of those taxed with judging the Quinns. Really poor show. And I'm done.

Million euro company deals and asset transfers should only be signed in person witnessed by a solicitor. It is ridiculous that you can have a 90m property transferred away with a digital signature, and the person denies they authorised it.

Are digital signatures legally worth anything??

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/sean-quinn-aide-at-centre-of-mystery-over-90m-asset-3208270.html

Documents show the digital signature of former Quinn Group finance director Dara O'Reilly was used in a transaction that effectively transferred the valuable asset to a Dubai-registered company whose ownership is unknown.
But Mr O'Reilly insisted he never authorised the transaction -- and he refused to comment on whether he believed somebody else had.

Meanwhile in Quinnland, the rot scamming through to the next generation.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/quinns-two-grandkids-facing-probe-3210181.html

Is the 'donation' subject to capital gains tax or the freezing orders?