Dole Fraudsters v. Banking Fraudsters

jonsnow

Great letter in the Irish Independent today which sums out how I feel about this issue.Hanafin is starting to beat the drums about going after dole fraudsters and punishing them.While the black economy is a serious issue and is about to become a more serious one, like the letter writer I feel that resources should be put into punishing the insider traders and fraudulent bankers who brought down our economic system before we go after some unemployed carpenter doing the odd job for cash in hand.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/ministers-slip-speaks-volumes-1922438.html

MINISTERS SLIP SPEAKS VOLUMES
Friday October 23 2009
Mary Hanafin, Social and Family Affairs Minister, had the unmitigated gall to state on RTE radio on Wednesday that new regulations will be required to tackle "dole fraud".
Of course, I'd forgotten. Only people on the dole commit fraud or any other kind of financial crime. The chancers who brought this country to its knees are still walking free; cosseted, protected. They are not likely to be on the dole.
The wink and nod has been given. Not one of them (this is a safe prediction) will ever stand in the dock of a courtroom. We know this instinctively.
Yet social welfare payments will be cut, FAS employment schemes chopped -- the kind of communities they serve are, after all, merely dole-fodder, no important people live in them -- and a tax will be put on children's allowances. Who cares?
Their kind will never be captains of industry anyway. They are not well connected and will never have access to influential politicians. They will never provide political donations.
Any of them who grow up healthy enough to join the dole queue will find themselves before the courts immediately if they even think about doing a job on the side. And they won't be appealing twice to the Supreme Court. No bailouts; no banks rushing to support them.
For these forgettables, no lavish expenses and outings to important race meetings and football matches on government jets. No fine wines and five-star hotels in far-away places.
Never have I heard a politician or a government minister outline more lucidly in one remark the true political philosophy of our present Government. It is all about social class and maintaining difference; about those who are not important enough on the social scale to protect and save from poverty and ill-health and who are natural-born criminals anyway. And those who are too big to fail must be propped up, protected, paid for, in case the heavens fall.
This is depraved and immoral political reasoning. This is Versailles-think.
It is time ordinary citizens understood the implications of the nasty truth that Mary Hanafin let slip on radio.
Fred Johnston
Circular Road, Galway

seamus

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats pretty much what I thought when I read the letter. Does deflecting the blame know no bounds in the current economic climate??

JonathanAnon

tbh, I dont consider it as big a fraud as some of the white collar stuff, like Michael Lynn or builders who got a loan from one bank to get a bigger loan from another.

I think the people should be forced to pay back what they owe the state, and not be given a penny from welfare (whether child, medical card etc etc) until it has been done. Banging them up is pointless, as they are usually not a danger to anybody and this will just cost the state money.

PomBear

Go f**k yourself Hanafin:mad:. The amount taken in Dole Fraud is small change compared to the €6.1 billion lost every year in the under the counter deals. Which i might add that NAMA only makes €5 billion in 11 years. Deals made by plenty of Hanafin's buddys, how dare she come out with this crap.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but can you say what new regulations Mary Hanafin is touting to catch the big-fish fraudsters?

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed 100%; but I think the point is that where NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER is put in place to get the top-level ones (and indeed, bonuses paid and no safeguards put into legislation in order to prevent it happening again) then there is a question to be answered :

Whyever not ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the point is that where NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER is put in place to get the top-level ones (and indeed, bonuses paid and no safeguards put into legislation in order to prevent it happening again) then there is a question to be answered :

Whyever not ?

Take the example given by someone else above, about someone taking a loan from one bank in order to get a bigger one from another bank....

What law has been broken, and who needs to do something about it?

If fraud has been committed, isn't it the case that the bank who has been defrauded has to bring charges? We can criticise (and arguably rightly so) the government for bailing out banks and not requiring them to go after such cases, but the sad reality is that a lot of so-called white-collar-crime requires the injured party to press charges. In such cases, we shouldn't expect the government to take the law into its own hands....that would be a cure worse then the poison.

In the case of social welfare, the government is the injured party. They have been defrauded, and so they can do something about it and should be expected to do so.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually you are mistaken, such is par for the course in these parts. It's part and parcel of the well-connected, nod and wink culture alluded to in the article.

evercloserunion

Well, we have to do everything we can to prevent fraud and plug the hole in the budget, and doing one thing doesn't prevent us from doing the other. I don't see anything wrong with Hanafin's stance. If it was up to Hanafin to go after both kinds of fraudster and she chose to focus only or mainly on dole fraudsters I could understand where you're coming from. But catching and preventing banking fraud is not Hanafin's job. I suppose that is more Lenihan's area.

Nothing wrong with Hanafin beating her drum on this topic; more power to her, as that is her job. The problem here is that Lenihan is not following suit. He has his own baddies to catch and he's not catching them. From a more general point of view, of course, you could say that the government is wrong to focus on one but not the other but the government is not one monolithic entity; it is composed of several different ministries which, though they communicate and cooperate with one another, are fundamentally distinct institutions.

T-Square

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

They have all the information they need, yet they do nothing.
They have *much* bigger fish to fry than some poor sod trying to do a nixer for cash.

If the gov. weren't so useless, smartcard/swipe card id would be in every wallet in the land, and hence no fraud

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

more benchmarking , this time small time thieves against big time thieves

starbelgrade

jonsnow wrote: »

Their kind will never be captains of industry anyway. They are not well connected and will never have access to influential politicians. They will never provide political donations.

??? Bizarre stuff.

donkey balls

what pisses me off is why is hanafin only getting around to doing this now dole fraud has been going on for years
why was this not tackled when there was low unemployment hence staff should have had more time to investigate bogus claims

Overheal

PomBear wrote: »

Go f**k yourself Hanafin:mad:. The amount taken in Dole Fraud is small change compared to the €6.1 billion lost every year in the under the counter deals. Which i might add that NAMA only makes €5 billion in 11 years. Deals made by plenty of Hanafin's buddys, how dare she come out with this crap.

I'd like to challenge that figure: How much revenue is your Country losing because Dole Fraudsters are Frauding the Dole because they know they can get away with not working, or get away with Working under the table and avoiding a myriad of legitimate taxes and institutions?

I dont think you can really hold a 6b Euro candle up to the loss of all the potential. Instead of Generating more wealth, they're suckling dry what meager wealth you Do have. You can't have a tiger year when you're on the couch.

irish_bob

donkey balls wrote: »

what pisses me off is why is hanafin only getting around to doing this now dole fraud has been going on for years
why was this not tackled when there was low unemployment hence staff should have had more time to investigate bogus claims

because thats not the fianna fail way

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And he has a point ...a moral one, if not a legal one.

While one bad deed doesn't justify another, ostensibly ignoring the one while pursuing the other (the easy target) just smacks of immorailty. But most of all, it creates ill will.

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I would hold that even if pursuing the weatlhy fraudsters with their expensive lawyers yields zero (or even a loss) in the end, there would be a net gain in that non-habitual piss-takers could be tempted to tow the line and not go out looking after themselves.
Once a society appears openly currupt and unjust, even law abiding people start to wonder if they shouldn't start tweaking the system a bit for their own benefit.

nesf

Eh, you'd swear from some of the posts that going after high level corporate fraud was a simple matter and Lenihan could have had them all in jail months ago if he could be bothered. The simple truth is that a) a lot of what the bankers did was immoral but not strictly illegal and you can't drag someone in front of a judge for the former and b) even when there is fraud, proving it can take years unless the person has been stupid. It's not even the Government's job to deal with these matters! There's a separate branch of law enforcement for this kind of stuff and we do not want politicians to be handling these cases personally. Or at least, no one in their right mind would.

Dole fraud on the other hand is for the most part a trivial thing to prove in comparison. It's completely within the remit of the Department both to pursue and punish these people and to set the fines. Ergo the Minister is completely correct to be focusing on this.

old boy

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

dvpower

old boy wrote: »

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

Nobody in this thread is saying that social welfare recipients should be hit. It is the people that are defrauding social welfare that should be hit. By definition, fraudsters are not entitled to the benefits they claim.

nesf

old boy wrote: »

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

Well, one way to look at it is that these fraudsters are taking cash that should be going to genuine recipients and their presence increases the overall cost of administering social welfare and by doing so effectively decrease how much real recipients could potentially get.

There's no excuse for it. None. It's ripping off other social welfare recipients as much as it is ripping off working taxpayers. There's a culture in this country of turning a blind eye to the neighbour who does work for cash and draws his dole and such and this is a serious problem.

old boy

well we have hannifin, lenihan clowen, de guy from the centeral bank, mc carthy, do i need to keep going on, they are what i mean by people cosseted in ivory towers, they will never have to go on welfare, index linked pensions, retirement bonuses, the polticians will have several pensions to draw, i an not refering to the vast majority just the tiny minority,

Wheely

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

So what-if you can afford an expensive and wealthy solicitor the State shouldn't bother prosecuting? Are you for real? That way it will only ever be the worst off in our society filling our jail cells cos they can't afford good legal representation?

seamus wrote: »

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

I don't know, the investigations into those avoiding tax through offshore accounts and other methods could be said to be about bringing those people to justice while at the same time netting money for the exchequer.

Wheely

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the whole point of the letter is that fruad is NOT fraud. And you can say "EVERYONE" should be pursued and prosecuted but they are not. They just aren't. I think that's the point he's making. The unemployed plasterer will probably be, the banking CEO will not. They neer really are. And who caused more harm in economic terms in this country? Was it the plasterer? Or was it the banker?

You say "Cracking down on corruption across the board is the only way to restore a culture of honesty and integrity to this country"-but that sounds like lip-service in order to defend a crackdown on doel fraudsters?

AM I to believe your serious about cracking downacross the board when the first line of your post referes to any such calls to do so as indignant and infalmmatory- "Oh, those elites. What will they try to get away with next." doesn't sound to me like your too concerned about "across the board" cracking down.......

Wheely

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Brilliant-use a big word and it'll win the argument! Eh, how is the relationship between a govt minister and the irish people a fiducuary one?

Wheely

bonkey wrote: »

Take the example given by someone else above, about someone taking a loan from one bank in order to get a bigger one from another bank....

What law has been broken, and who needs to do something about it?

If fraud has been committed, isn't it the case that the bank who has been defrauded has to bring charges? We can criticise (and arguably rightly so) the government for bailing out banks and not requiring them to go after such cases, but the sad reality is that a lot of so-called white-collar-crime requires the injured party to press charges. In such cases, we shouldn't expect the government to take the law into its own hands....that would be a cure worse then the poison.

In the case of social welfare, the government is the injured party. They have been defrauded, and so they can do something about it and should be expected to do so.

Sorry mate-stick to Conspiracy theories on future will ya? I love everyone rushing to thank such a nonsensical post which obviously has NO comprehension of what regulation is or how it works.

What you are arguing here is that the State has no interest in the regulation of financial services. That the banks should regulate themselves-cos it's only directors and shareholders that have a legitimate interest in a healthy banking system right? Insider trading only affects the two companies that are involved right-it has no bearing on the international stock markets right? Sorry-do think breaches of the Companies Acts are only enforced at the behest of wronged companies? What do you think the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement does-waits by the phone for a bank CEO to call and say "Ive been defrauded-ENFORCE something!" Honestly even a basic knowledge of these things should be required if your going to comment on an issue like this.

Wheely

evercloserunion wrote: »

From a more general point of view, of course, you could say that the government is wrong to focus on one but not the other but the government is not one monolithic entity; it is composed of several different ministries which, though they communicate and cooperate with one another, are fundamentally distinct institutions.

That is essentially making excuses for a situation whereby one govt department doesn't know what the other one is doing. They are not fundamentally distinct institutions and if they are I don't think it's too much to ask that my govt acts as one, instead of a bunch of different departments acting independently of each other.

Wheely

nesf wrote: »

Eh, you'd swear from some of the posts that going after high level corporate fraud was a simple matter and Lenihan could have had them all in jail months ago if he could be bothered. The simple truth is that a) a lot of what the bankers did was immoral but not strictly illegal and you can't drag someone in front of a judge for the former and b) even when there is fraud, proving it can take years unless the person has been stupid. It's not even the Government's job to deal with these matters! There's a separate branch of law enforcement for this kind of stuff and we do not want politicians to be handling these cases personally. Or at least, no one in their right mind would.

Dole fraud on the other hand is for the most part a trivial thing to prove in comparison. It's completely within the remit of the Department both to pursue and punish these people and to set the fines. Ergo the Minister is completely correct to be focusing on this.

Sorry NESF but a lot of what the bankers did wasn't just immoral-it was also illegal. SO they should be prosecuted and thats just a fact. ALso something being difficult is not in and of itself a reason not to do it. The bank guarantee scheme wasn't a particularly easy thing to do but it was done and done swiftly.

Many would tell you how difficult and complex it is to nationalise a bank-it took an afternoon.

NAMA is also pretty complicated that's being done.

So even if "high level corporate fraud" isn't a simple matter, lets just go after it anyway shall we? And how easy is it going to be to sniff out dole fraud anyway? It at least takes a moderate amount of effort to locate.

And it's not the govt's job to do this? WTF is that supposed to mean? A seperate brach of law enforcement-who are paid by and directed by who may I ask? People aren't suggesting Brian Lenihan suit up and kick in Sean Fitzpatrick's door and drag him down to the sherrifs office! But then again I think you knew that.......

nyarlothothep

Its just a case of the externalities not being factored in. You the public will suffer the reprecussions of those poorly justified bailouts but who cares when its all about upholding the status quo. When is the value of social stability exceeded by the value for systematic reform and personal accountability, rather than letting it all be taken care of by people who certainly don't share your interests as the evidence proves already?

AlekSmart

Its worth noting that the Investigation Branch of the DFSA was one of the least resourced,poorest and generally snowed-under sections of that Department over the past two decades.

Investigations WERE always carried on,both randomly and on "foot of reports" from the general public.

However in many cases,the amount of Investigation Time required to build up a case to evidential standards simply was not sanctioned by higher management.
This was especially relevant in the light of previous Court judgements,which whilst successful in the Legal sense,rarely resulted in the retrieval of the actual lost amounts of money.

Most likely,some Inspection reports which recommended further action were simply read and filed by the superiors on the basis of maintaining a form of peaceful Status Quo in a certain area or to keep an internal budget under control.

This lack of effective internal control has left us with an entire DSFA system which has become a dei-facto "employment" for many and to which access is seen as a confirmed right,rather than something to be regarded as temporary assistance.

It also needs to be remembered that Investigation Officers of the DFSA would most certainly be required to take risks in the pursuance of their work and most certainly expose themselves to a high level of danger on a daily basis.

It`s only in the past 12 months that we have heard Minister Hanifin refer to the existance of an Investigation Branch and to increasing it`s resources....sadly I feel it`s Too Little-Too Late

bonkey

Wheely wrote: »

Sorry mate-stick to Conspiracy theories on future will ya? I love everyone rushing to thank such a nonsensical post which obviously has NO comprehension of what regulation is or how it works.

What you are arguing here is that the State has no interest in the regulation of financial services.

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Kama

Strange how the universalist rhetoric of 'all being in it together', 'unacceptable at any level' etc only comes out to play when on the way down, when it was atavistic socialist nonsense on the way up...

nesf wrote:

There's a culture in this country of turning a blind eye to the neighbour who does work for cash and draws his dole and such and this is a serious problem.

There is a pervasive and systemic culture of dishonesty and fraud in this country, from our 'clientelistic' crony-capitalists at the top, right the way down to the unemployed. Getting around the system for your own private good has been the dominant social ideology of this country for awhiles now, throughout the entirety of the socioeconomic structure.

Arguably, dole fraudsters have been following the national norms of 'best practice', in imitation of their 'betters'. To have a FF pol complain about such fraud, problem as it may be, rings somewhat hypocritical. White-collar crime has always got the soft touch in this country, whether due to guangxi, or not wanting to scare off business with 'over-regulation', or because they can afford good lawyers.

I'm all for cracking down on fraud across the board; the problem being that one side of the board is anything but 'cracked down on'. A visibly corrupt system breeds an acceptance, if not a legitimation, of further corruption: the bankster beam to the dolester mote.

Wheely

bonkey wrote: »

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

That is what you argued-you argued that financial regulation was a matter for the banks and the banks alone, likening it to an action in tort between two private parties. What do you mean if there was no interst in regulation there'd be no law at all? What the hell does that even mean?

bonkey wrote: »

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

Right........ So who enforces it then if not the govt? The banks? The sector regulates itself? You're repeating the same nonsense I just responded too it seems!

bonkey wrote: »

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Sean Fitzpatrick hid his loans from the bank from the bank for over 8 years at a time when he chief executive and chairperson of the bank!!! Not only are there common law fiduciary duties to the company, there are also statutory ones i.e s.197 CA 1990 not to "knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular". That is only one. One of the most open and shut breaches. SO there's your example. But maybe you don't think it's up to the govt to enforce the Companies Acts-what is it you think the ODCE is there for? Seriously!

Not to mention flagrant breaches of capital maintenance rules in relation to loaning money in order to organise a private shareholding purchase so as to inflate the price of the shares, maybe even manipulation of the stock market. I myslef dont work for the ODCE so I'm probanly not as up on it as I should be if I were. But I know enough about it to comment on it on a message board, you obviously do not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

No I'm not, nor am I arguing at any point that welfare fraud is not a problem.

I am arguing that if you want a less-systemically corrupt society, where nod-and-a-wink fraud at all levels is seen as a 'win', the concentration on the less well-endowed of fraudsters is anything but a change.

Paying tax, or being prosecuted, is for the 'little people', while a Better Class is 'too big to fall'. My main point, is about how perception affects behavior: if the Great and Good of a society are happy and feel justified with a 'laissez-faire' approach to fraud and corruption, it sends a pretty clear signal to everyone else. We have a historically-lax aproach to enforcing the law on white-collar crime, as a 'pro business policy'.

And no, while I wouldn't suggest the Nigerians took direct lessons from AIB, but I would suggest the '419 man' in all his variants evolves and thrives in systemicaly corrupt states, and such action is seen as, or arguably becomes, more legitimate the more corrupt the environment is.

Chasing welfare fraud is one thing; doing so while adopting a 'kid gloves' attitude to high-level white collar fraud, with a rhetoric of national solidarity? Priceless.

Overheal

Wheely wrote: »

I don't think it's too much to ask that my govt acts as one, instead of a bunch of different departments acting independently of each other.

Thats just not how government works. Unless you're in a dictatorship of some description. We have compartmentalized units in all branches.

If there was one single department headed by one or two people, then you would need to corrupt only one or two people to bring down the entire government.

Overheal

bonkey wrote: »

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Im not sure where you're coming from here. In the USA at least, its called a Congressional Hearing. And they happen a lot. Federal law is then of course enforced by the FBI or local law enforcement agencies. I forget who's responsible for enforcing things like Insider Trading on wall street, but that is a Federal Entity as well, as far as Im aware.

nesf

Wheely wrote: »

Sorry NESF but a lot of what the bankers did wasn't just immoral-it was also illegal. SO they should be prosecuted and thats just a fact. ALso something being difficult is not in and of itself a reason not to do it. The bank guarantee scheme wasn't a particularly easy thing to do but it was done and done swiftly.

Many would tell you how difficult and complex it is to nationalise a bank-it took an afternoon.

NAMA is also pretty complicated that's being done.

So even if "high level corporate fraud" isn't a simple matter, lets just go after it anyway shall we? And how easy is it going to be to sniff out dole fraud anyway? It at least takes a moderate amount of effort to locate.

And it's not the govt's job to do this? WTF is that supposed to mean? A seperate brach of law enforcement-who are paid by and directed by who may I ask? People aren't suggesting Brian Lenihan suit up and kick in Sean Fitzpatrick's door and drag him down to the sherrifs office! But then again I think you knew that.......

Ok. First they should be pursued. I don't believe otherwise. Second, it isn't the Government's job to do this anymore than it is their job to individually direct the pursuit of gangland criminals. We have professional law enforcement people for a reason. Politicians just aren't trained or experienced enough to enforce law, we have well paid people to do this on behalf of the State for this exact reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

jonsnow wrote: »

Social and Family Affairs Minister, had the unmitigated gall to state on RTE radio on Wednesday that new regulations will be required to tackle "dole fraud". [/I]
Of course, I'd forgotten. Only people on the dole commit fraud or any other kind of financial crime. The chancers who brought this country to its knees are still walking free; cosseted, protected. They are not likely to be on the dole.

Technically speaking, only people on the dole can actually commit dole fraud.

jonsnow

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Technically speaking, only people on the dole can actually commit dole fraud.

Yeah and technically speaking only bankers can commit banking fraud.I don,t think Fred Johnson advocated going after bankers for commiting dole fraud anywhere in his letter.After all they are not likely to be on the dole in the first place.He did advocate going after bankers who commited financial fraud however.

jonsnow

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair I dont think that in any of his posts Kama equated Ireland with a systematically corrupt state.He was merely pointing out that ignoring corruption in high places was going to lead to a society where there is a trickledown of corruption to every other social class as people grow disillusioned with what they see as an unfair and unbalanced system and begin to cut a few corners.

I,d be interested to see the 2009 results when they come out.Ireland will have fallen a few places I suspect.

jonsnow

nesf wrote: »

Ok. First they should be pursued. I don't believe otherwise. Second, it isn't the Government's job to do this anymore than it is their job to individually direct the pursuit of gangland criminals. We have professional law enforcement people for a reason. Politicians just aren't trained or experienced enough to enforce law, we have well paid people to do this on behalf of the State for this exact reason.

Actually politicians do direct the pursuit of criminals.They tell the law enforcement types who to pursue and prioritise certain groups of criminals over others.If you think that political pressure has no bearing on law enforcement in this country you are being naive.

Its in Shane Ross,s book the Bankers that when Fingers son sent that email around the UK touting for business based on the Irish governments banking guarantee it made Lenihan look bad with the british.He rang the financial Regulator and read him the riot act.Hey presto for the first time ever a banker is sanctioned and fined.If Lenihan hadn,t been embarrassed its a pretty safe bet the Financial Regulator would have done sweet FA.

waffleman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As soon as it's announced that "Everyone who commits fraud will be pursued and prosecuted" I'm all for it - not a problem.

nesf

jonsnow wrote: »

Actually politicians do direct the pursuit of criminals.They tell the law enforcement types who to pursue and prioritise certain groups of criminals over others.If you think that political pressure has no bearing on law enforcement in this country you are being naive.

Its in Shane Ross,s book the Bankers that when Fingers son sent that email around the UK touting for business based on the Irish governments banking guarantee it made Lenihan look bad with the british.He rang the financial Regulator and read him the riot act.Hey presto for the first time ever a banker is sanctioned and fined.If Lenihan hadn,t been embarrassed its a pretty safe bet the Financial Regulator would have done sweet FA.

You misinterpret what I was saying. It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases since they don't have the necessary understanding of procedure etc in order to catch criminals be they white collar or whatever.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

You misinterpret what I was saying. It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases since they don't have the necessary understanding of procedure etc in order to catch criminals be they white collar or whatever.

That'd be somewhat acceptable, but when they don't even legislate to make sure that many white-collar things are recognised as crimes, while legislating loads of things that are easier to "catch", then of course normal people feel hard done by.

And then there is the fact that - if and when caught on the "ordinary" crimes - the powerful are treated differently.

As an example, if an ordinary Joe Soap was so drunk that he drove up the wrong side of a dual-carriageway, endangering lives, what do you think the outcome would be ? And can you remember the outcome for a similar situation ?

Kama

Especially with the deregulative approach to the finanical systems, certain acts cannot be crimes, because their context, rather than legal or illegal, might be best characterized as alegal, following the same move as Soros with respect to morality in markets. That which is not forbidden, is kosher. After all, we can't regulate, that would just create loopholes, we can't go after them legally, they have good lawyers, and much as with taxation, we don't want to be too hard on them, since they are footloose.

And so (conveniently) on...

nesf wrote:

It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases

The example quoted seems quite micro in its management, but the more relevant direction would be the macromanagement: the construction of what is a 'crime', either in strictly legal or in more perception-based terms. Simply, the crimes of the powerless are crimes, and they must be pursued, while the crimes of the powerful require a different, lighter approach.

In tighter terms, taking the numerous examples of actual illegal behavior, shall we count the prosecutions? Law, again, is for the 'little people'.

And in the case of Joe Soap, did he not threaten the Garda present, saying he would destroy his career? Or was that a different Joe?


And yes Jon, that was my meaning, with the possible slippage that i consider our culture to have systemic corruption, which is slightly different to systematic. And I would expect our position to slip considerably, especially as TI's metric are based on perceptions of corruption. Our faux-corporatist clientelistic system isn't looking too hot to observers, and our actions have done nothing to restore confidence in the transparency and integrity of our political system.

But sure don't worry, we'll distract people by talking about how 'tha farraners' are stealing our welfare.

Flamed Diving

FAO: Wheely.

Executive =/= Judiciary

End.

Kev_ps3

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but in this country we turn a blind eye to the 'people who rob over 500k' completely. Thats what he was on about. Of course people who illegally clam dole should be prosecuted.