The "Golden Circle" - should they be named?

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't buy the guff about confidence being eroded if the names are published - confidence is already at rock bottom and I would actually imagine that everyone would have far more confidence in the government's credibility if they stood up against corruption and named the 10 rather than taking part in what is beginning to look like a massive cover up. Take Anglo for example - interesting that they were nationalized right before the EGM, at which things would undoubtedly have been uncovered had it gone ahead as planned.

I'm not saying I agree with the conspiracy theories but don't the government realize that by hiding such information they make it so much more believable?

P. Breathnach

First, I wonder how much anything would be improved if they were named (Yes, I'm curious, like most people here, but it's the old conundrum about the public interest and what interests the public).

Second, if identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay; if they can be identified by other means, then let's have the story and satisfy our curiosity.

galwayrush

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time. ****'s going to hit the fan big time soon regarding this, Fraud Squad and CAB hopefully won't be restricted in investigating and prosecuting the culprits, no matter how rich or politically connected they are.

xOxSinéadxOx

yes! they should be named

Sand

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time.

Exactly, and this is what this golden circle are - loan defaulters. If they were Joe Soaps the banks would pursue them to the ends of the earth and blacken their name as best they could. Why can we not even know the name of the people whose debts we are expected to cover?

What are they ashamed of?

SkepticOne

galwayrush wrote: »

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time. ****'s going to hit the fan big time soon regarding this, Fraud Squad and CAB hopefully won't be restricted in investigating and prosecuting the culprits, no matter how rich or politically connected they are.

I thought it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Financial Regulator that were carrying out the investigations. The Fraud Squad can only get involved if there's a complaint.

thebigcheese22

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay

Yeah coz its not like the ***** in Anglo or Irish Life & Permanent have ever broken banking law!!! :eek:

P. Breathnach

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Yeah coz its not like the ***** in Anglo or Irish Life & Permanent have ever broken banking law!!! :eek:

You seem to disapprove of the idea of them breaking banking law; you should equally disapprove of anybody else breaking banking law.

P. Breathnach

I am sure a list will emerge in due course, by some means or another.

What if there is no prominent politician on it, or any of the big business/property figures who are already thought of as being dodgy? Just ordinary filthy rich people?

Might people be disappointed?

asdasd

Might people be disappointed?

No. I's like to know, regardless of who is in there, why their loans were written off by my newly nationalized bank. And who authorhized that.

marcsignal

xOxSinéadxOx wrote: »

yes! they should be named

i agree

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You seem to disapprove of the idea of them breaking banking law; you should equally disapprove of anybody else breaking banking law.

Not quite the same, P....

I would view that if the original transaction broke banking law and ethics, THEN the follow-up to THAT transaction should be outside of normal confidentiality....

Basically, if you're playing by the rules, all confidentiality applies, but if you're not, the rule book should be out the window.

I've had the same thought in other areas (e.g. that my comprehensive insurance shouldn't apply if I'm speeding or robbing a bank) and neither of those would do the general public out of 3 billion!

The greater good would be served by outing the scum involved.

And yes, we need to know what con-man wrote off these scum's loans after we paid in the 3 billion to "save" the bank. He should be personally liable for giving every cent of our money back! :mad:

Seth Brundle

Would naming them have any repurcussions on any follow up legalities in terms of getting any money back (if thats even possible)?

cuppa

I want them named,,bet they are in the banking sector or politics or mixed.people in the know ,big cash big banking and laws that they know how to get around.

Name em it the peoples bank now...or is it.

I expect in the next few days they will be named

Banks name people all the time but rarely and usually only when they are brought to court.
It's not usual for it to be done otherwise.

So what needs to happen here is that a law needs to be proven to be broken [which shouldn't be hard] and due process needs to be followed.

Otherwise we may aswell open the floodgates on confidentiality everywhere.

To echo Jim Power speaking on TV3 last night...I'm pretty sure that laws must have been broken if the bank arranged to have a group of people borrow from it to buy what was then €300 million worth of shares behind closed doors without them coming on the market,the express purpose of which must have been to prevent the share price falling.

I'm no expert and am open to correction but that looks to me like fraud on so many levels.

I think the public are right baying for blood when said monies are unlikely to be recovered and are now effectively the taxpayers debt at a time when the house is falling in around us.
But I think they should be baying for the right kind of blood and they should be asking for TOTAL transparency in the investigative process here so as the right thing is done and nothing is shoved under the carpet.

If theres no litigation and no satisfactory paper trail and explanation as to the why's and wherefores of no litigation,I'll happily observe the public political baying for blood in glee and rightly so.

Patience Herd.Patience.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

If theres no litigation and no satisfactory paper trail and explanation as to the why's and wherefores of no litigation,I'll happily observe the public political baying for blood in glee and rightly so.

I think the problem is that the public believes there's going to be a cover up and so better get the names out now rather than wait for a trial that may never happen.

Nodin

kbannon wrote: »

Would naming them have any repurcussions on any follow up legalities in terms of getting any money back (if thats even possible)?

All but 75 million of the 300 has been written off. The remainder will probably follow.

Joe Brennan

Thursday February 19 2009

Taoiseach Brian Cowen vowed yesterday that State-owned Anglo Irish Bank will pursue any money lent to the 'golden circle' of high rollers it lined up to buy a 10pc stake in the bank last year.
However, Anglo is expected to confirm in its annual report tomorrow that it may have to write off most, if not all, of the estimated €300m loan it provided the investors, understood to comprise a number of the lender's property developer customers.
Some 75pc of the loans were secured on nothing other than the shares themselves, now virtually worthless. The remaining 25pc -- or €75m -- was covered by other security.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/golden-circle---8364300m-loan--will-be-pursued-1644971.html

Deleted User wrote:

To echo Jim Power speaking on TV3 last night...I'm pretty sure that laws must have been broken if the bank arranged to have a group of people borrow from it to buy what was then €300 million worth of shares behind closed doors without them coming on the market,the express purpose of which must have been to prevent the share price falling.

I'm no expert and am open to correction but that looks to me like fraud on so many levels.

And thats what my rough understanding led me to conclude also. However, the transaction had departmental approval, in the form it was presented to them. which did not mention that Anglo was financing this from its own funds. Its therefore quite possible that the 10 individuals involved had no idea that they were doing anything that might be questionable, whatever about those in the bank who had involved them. Certainly they might claim thus, should any action be taken against them.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0220/1224241489376.html

dave-higgz

Anyone listening to the ****e Ulick McEvady is spewing on Pat Kenny right now (not a regular listener myself, honestly)

He's basically saying to employ Sean Fitzpatrick and Brian Goggin in the govenment as advisers, even though Anglo has fallen because of bad management and then he's gettin all sympathetic towards a friend of his who has lost €15m because of Anglo. Who cares, he obviously has another million more! Some of these guys are so out of touch!!

deadhead13

The attorney general has adviced the government that naming the ten could result in them being sued. But surely this is the very reason why dail privilege exists - TD's and Senators may not be sued for defamation because of any speech in the house.

maggy_thatcher

Surely these 10 guys will have great difficulty in ever getting a loan again? Their credit rating is now "didn't pay off a €30m loan...do not trust"? Or does that only happen to regular people?

SEPT 23 1989

dave-higgz wrote: »

Anyone listening to the ****e Ulick McEvady is spewing on Pat Kenny right now (not a regular listener myself, honestly)

He's basically saying to employ Sean Fitzpatrick and Brian Goggin in the govenment as advisers, even though Anglo has fallen because of bad management and then he's gettin all sympathetic towards a friend of his who has lost €15m because of Anglo. Who cares, he obviously has another million more! Some of these guys are so out of touch!!

i dont think its really sunk in with people like him who live in a different universe that things in this country are in the process are changing forever and the ordinary person sees through their bull**** and wont put up with it

Zynks

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Second, if identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay; if they can be identified by other means, then let's have the story and satisfy our curiosity.

The part in bold is where the problem lies. Yes, customer confidentiality should be protected, but maybe this confidentiality doesn't apply to shareholders, specially the ones that possibly acquired the shares through fraudulent means.

deadhead13

In the National Irish Bank v RTE case the argument of bank confidentiality was overruled because it was in the public interest to do so. Same applies here.

Yenwod

In any other country guys like this (and other folk who have been in the media lately) would be marched away in cuffs and made pay for what they've done. And rightly so.

Name, shame, charge and punish!

cdb

We as taxpayers own Anglo and are effectively shareholders in the bank. Should we not therefore be entitled to know about the other shareholders who have defaulted on their loans from our bank.

P. Breathnach

Yenwod wrote: »

In any other country guys like this (and other folk who have been in the media lately) would be marched away in cuffs and made pay for what they've done. And rightly so.

Name, shame, charge and punish!

What crime do you think they have committed?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Market manipulation?

Clare_Guy

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

SkepticOne

Clare_Guy wrote: »

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

I think the reason for this is that Fitzpatrick was named before legislation was brought in to prevent further namings.

asdasd

What crime do you think they have committed?

It would be nice to know the reason behind the forgiveness of the loan. In general, as I understand it, forgiven loans are considered income, so let's see if we get tax back.

asdasd

I think the reason for this is that Fitzpatrick was named before legislation was brought in to prevent further namings.

wow.

Singer73

The govt (the People) is a sharehoder in the bank. Ahareholders cannot have access to information about who gets what loans from the bank. This is basic banking PLC 101. The govt as the shareholder cannot have access to these names, or at least cannot be seen to be the ones who have access.
Those who took the loans did not act fraudulently. It's the bank who appear to have acted fraudulently. The 10 may even have been unwilling participants in this scheme.
I'm all for tabloid headlines, but let's not have the media running the country...

P. Breathnach

Clare_Guy wrote: »

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

Loans to directors are required to be disclosed. That requirement is there to ensure that directors do not abuse their position to the detriment of the shareholders whose interest they are supposed to represent.

There is a strong case to be made that the parking of the loan was an effort to conceal something that should have been disclosed, and so that it is fair and appropriate to bring it before the public.

SeanW

Should these 10 clowns be named? Absolutely.

The Exchequer should have done a Lehman Brothers on Anglo. Had it been excluded from the Bank Guarantee and let collapse, the malinvestment would have been cleared out of the system, the toxic assets would have been resold under insolvency procedures and revalued correctly, all that the company had owned would be redistributed to other compaines who had a better idea what to do with them, and the incompetent and semi-fraudulent activity would have been punished by normal market forces, which is exactly what happened with Lehman.

Ideally Anglo should have been let fall on its own sword as should NIB and IL&P if they (having been also involved in simmering Anglos books) should likewise fail if they engaged in other dodgy practices.

But instead of letting it fall by the wayside, now the whole country partly owns this toxic cesspool, and it's going to hang around all our necks for years causing pain, we have a right to know the full extent of what was going on.

Zynks

Singer73 wrote: »

The govt (the People) is a sharehoder in the bank. Ahareholders cannot have access to information about who gets what loans from the bank. This is basic banking PLC 101. The govt as the shareholder cannot have access to these names, or at least cannot be seen to be the ones who have access.
Those who took the loans did not act fraudulently. It's the bank who appear to have acted fraudulently. The 10 may even have been unwilling participants in this scheme.
I'm all for tabloid headlines, but let's not have the media running the country...

So let's not ask who are the 10 who took the loans. Let's ask who are the 10 who bought shares (these are not customers) and eventually lost them because they were taken over by a lender who called the guarantee in.

Is the register of shareholders also confidential?

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Loans to directors are required to be disclosed. That requirement is there to ensure that directors do not abuse their position to the detriment of the shareholders whose interest they are supposed to represent.

There is a strong case to be made that the parking of the loan was an effort to conceal something that should have been disclosed, and so that it is fair and appropriate to bring it before the public.

Yes, but all transactions are also to be declared to the stock market.
The actions of the Golden 10 is insider trading.
It was done to prevent a slump in share prices when the 10% is released onto the market.

I think Sean FitzPatrick's loans were disclosed because *technically* they're not illegal. I don't believe he can be prosecuted in anyway, so why not name and shame?

Its probably good that the Golden 10 have not been named, it was you yourself who made the point about pre-judicial comment, allegations and the inability to have a fair trial.

Remember, we couldn't prosecute Charles Haughey, Father of Irish Corruption, due to the very same thing.
Lets not have the same mistake again.

On the other hand, this is little ol'Ireland where everyone is a director on everyone elses board, so if we're not going to prosecute them, lets hope they will be named and shamed.

DublinWriter

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Insider trading.

SkepticOne

I think what they may have committed allegedly is market manipulation, like insider dealing, a form of market abuse.

See Market Abuse (Directive 2003/6/EC) Regulations 2005

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, and anger about this whole mess is making me ignorant (I hope it isn't :P) -

However, how the hell can these lads be having huge debts written off so easily? Surely there's something highly dodgy happening there. I highly doubt that they've all gone bankrupt and are totally unable to pay off a cent. If it was you or me refusing to pay off a loan to a bank, and they'd be using every facet of the law to get that money back - it wouldn't be "Legal" then.. So why is it different for these people then?

Seriously can someone shed some light as to whether this is just a big "Fúck you" to every single tax payer in this country who are now bailing these fools out, or is there actually some highly illegal activity going on....

I take it back actually, we're the fools.

asdasd

However, how the hell can these lads having huge debts written off so easily?

I agree but that is not necessarily insider trading. What may be insider trading is the bank getting people it has loaned to, to buy it's own shares. It is, however, legal to buy back shares, so I am not sure about that one. The people getting the loan were not technically insiders - unlike FitzPatrick.

If the loans were agreed on the basis that they would be written off if the stocks collapsed ( and that is hardly over-speculative) then the recipients are liable for tax on the loan since it is effectively income. However that agreement may not be in writing. If it was in writing then there could be some cases of manipulation involved since the banks were giving reisk-free loans to prop up it's own shareprice, and manipulate the market.

But i am not sure of legality. I am sure of the lack of ethics.

What i think we should do is, as shareholders, talk to the directors ( i.e. the minister) and ask him to reinstate the loans. We are the owners, now, and we feel that the loans should not have been written off, nor should there have been any agreement to write them off. So if the new directors don't reverse that decision we will replace the directors.

ateam

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

deadhead13

ateam wrote: »

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

I wonder how many of them have been to ff's infamous galway races tent.

quickg

It seems the air industry magnate Ulick McEvaddy is finally showing his true colours. His unreserved support for the likes of Sean Fitzpatrick is disappointing to say the least.
It seems the rarified athmosphere of the cabin of a private jet plays havoc with ethics and scruples. Not too long ago, these self made millionaires would have attracted a lot of adulation and praise, but not anymore. When this smokescreen of corruption, insider dealing, golden circle has lifted, people will see the murkey underworld of sharp practice, dodgy dealing rather than smart business acumen, intelligence and ability.
The cat is well and truly out of the bag with regard to these people.

FrankGrimes

asdasd wrote: »

I agree but that is not necessarily insider trading. What may be insider trading is the bank getting people it has loaned to, to buy it's own shares. It is, however, legal to buy back shares, so I am not sure about that one. The people getting the loan were not technically insiders - unlike FitzPatrick.

I think the above is an opinion as opposed to fact and we're in the realms of speculation until we hear definitive guidance on the legality or otherwise of these transactions.

amen

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

FrankGrimes

ateam wrote: »

David Murphy has just said the Golden Circle are not household names (on RTE radio). He has seen the list. They are connected to the building trade though.

Who is David Murphy and how did he get to see the list? Very interesting stuff, won't be at all surprised if investigative reporters manage to uncover some interesting political links of those individuals....though I guess Murphy didn't actually give the names?

asdasd

I think the above is an opinion as opposed to fact

I am actually certain about all of it, except the part I used the word "may"; which i used judiciously.

dvpower

amen wrote: »

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

In the UK at least, I think there is legislation allowing for sharholders to have access to the shareholders register. I'm not sure what the details are, I think there is a 'proper purpose' clause, or if something similar exists here. Maybe some 'law-talking guys' out there can clarify?

A possible consideration is that Anglo is no longer a PLC, so maybe its a mute point.

Locamon

I like many here think the list of 10 must be published for the public good.

This is not a simple case of loans to customers, each took a stake in the bank and as investors surely their names and the nature of the deal should have been disclosed to the stock market at the time. The fact it wasn't was surely an unfair advantage to the individuals involved and not in the interest of ordinary shareholders who knew nothing of the deal. If as is widely speculated these investors are connected to FF then an investigation has to be carried out as to what if any involvement the governing party had in this deal and how it has come to pass that these loans are now written off.

At the end of the day all of the Irish banks have been at the very least poorly run and we the taxpayers, who are now bailing them out, can surely expect to see a removal of the decision makers who got them into this situation -without golden handshakes and perks to ease their exit. The fact a senior banker could appear on national television and poor mouth his drop in income by a million euro because he made bad decisions when thousands are losing their jobs is disheartening to say the least.

P. Breathnach

amen wrote: »

I thought all share holders had to be listed on the shareholders register?

Correct.

So as a taxpayer could I ask to see the register and see who purchase a large amount of shares around this time?

You don't even have to be a taxpayer to see it. Anybody can inspect the share register of a public limited company on payment of a nominal fee. That is because everybody is a potential purchaser of shares. But it's unlikely to help, for two reasons:
1. Many investors conceal their interest (legally) by having the shares held by nominee shareholders. So the holdings might be listed in names like "XY Nominee Holdings".
2. The real issue is identifying those shareholders who were given loans to help them buy the shares, and that won't be shown.

I also thought the stock exchange had to be informed if a large number of shares was purchased by an individual?

Yes. But I think that point is 3% of the shares, and the members of the group are understood to have acquired 1% each.

Dannyboy83

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Correct.



You don't even have to be a taxpayer to see it. Anybody can inspect the share register of a public limited company on payment of a nominal fee. That is because everybody is a potential purchaser of shares. But it's unlikely to help, for two reasons:
1. Many investors conceal their interest (legally) by having the shares held by nominee shareholders. So the holdings might be listed in names like "XY Nominee Holdings".
2. The real issue is identifying those shareholders who were given loans to help them buy the shares, and that won't be shown.



Yes. But I think that point is 3% of the shares, and the members of the group are understood to have acquired 1% each.

Excellent post.

Under American law, I believe ALL transactions have to be declared to the market, anything else is Insider Trading.

Given the strategy employed here, it will probably be shown that not all transactions need to be declared on the Irish stock market.

We lose again.