State official avoids jail after stealing €100,000 from bank

Klingon Hamlet

Can you believe this ?!

A DEPARTMENT of Agriculture official escaped a jail sentence yesterday after admitting stealing €100,000 from Bank of Ireland.

Fiona Finnegan (39), a married woman with a family from Sylaun, Tuam, Co Galway, pleaded guilty before Galway Circuit Court to a single charge of stealing the money from the Bank of Ireland branch at Dublin Road, Tuam, on November 22, 2006.

Det Gda Mary Burke told the court that Finnegan originally opened a current account in her own name at the Tuam branch in 2001.

On November 17, 2006, she lodged a cheque for €100,000 to this account -- the cheque was drawn on an account opened at AIB in Salthill.

She subsequently completed an application for an electronic transfer of €100,000 to a Turkish bank. She called a number of times to the Tuam bank enquiring if the funds had been transferred and an official contacted Bank of Ireland Global Markets at Talbot Street, Dublin, to ask if the transfer could be expedited.

Cheque

On November 22, 2006, the cheque for €100,000 was returned unpaid and marked "not cleared". But by then, the €100,000 was transferred, Det Gda Burke told the court.

When the bank made inquiries, it discovered that the funds in the AIB account were made up of a lodgment of a cheque for €109,000. The account holder was Sentry Properties and it was signed by Fiona Gallagher.

Det Gda Burke told the court that Fiona Gallagher, trading as Sentry Properties, was the same person as Fiona Finnegan and this company account was closed in November 2005 and had no funds at the time the cheque was lodged.

When questioned, Finnegan admitted there were no funds to meet the cheque lodged to AIB in Salthill. She said she was under pressure in connection with the purchase of property in Turkey.

Det Gda Burke said she had now been handed a bank draft in favour of Bank of Ireland for €100,000.

Judge Raymond Groarke imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, but suspended the term and bound Finnegan to the peace for 12 months.

She stole the money, completely and utterly defrauded a bank for 100k...and she walks away free with no fines or sentence to be served?! There must be more to this. If I defrauded a bank €100,000, would I walk away scot-free?!

Overheal

a custodial sentence of 18 months, but suspended the term and bound Finnegan to the peace for 12 months.

Thats the going rate for running over children when youre wasted out of your mind as well, isnt it?

MagicMarker

Maybe it's me, but wtf is the point in throwing someone like her in jail? It's just going to be more money wasted.

I'd much rather see someone like this given a free pass with the threat of jail should they re-offend, and have her jail time given to some scumbag who's more deserving.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MagicMarker wrote: »

Maybe it's me, but wtf is the point in throwing someone like her in jail? It's just going to be more money wasted.

I'd much rather see someone like this given a free pass with the threat of jail should they re-offend, and have her jail time given to some scumbag who's more deserving.

She might be defrauding charities/pensioners/people with credit cards next.

Lets face it if she broke into the bank at night and took the money she'd be doing time. There's no difference.

I'm not saying she deserves the same sentence as someone who robbed a bank of 100k through armed robbery, but should get more than a slap on the wrist.

On the other hand the bank should have looked at the cheque lodged and seen it was signed BY THE CUSTOMER and realised it was dodgy as hell

cml387

Did the bank actually lose any money? Did she gain anything? It's not entirely clear from the report.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cml387 wrote: »

Did the bank actually lose any money? Did she gain anything? It's not entirely clear from the report.

She got them to transfer 100K to a turkish bank account through electronic fund transfer. To pay for it she used a cheque knowing it would bounce. So bank of Ireland down 100K, Fiona Finnegan up 100K in Turkey.

MikeC101

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

She got them to transfer 100K to a turkish bank account through electronic fund transfer. To pay for it she used a cheque knowing it would bounce. So bank of Ireland down 100K, Fiona Finnegan up 100K in Turkey.

Fairly likely BoI were able to recall the transfer (or had already done so) without incurring too much of a charge though, as long as they got in touch before she withdrew it from the Turkish bank.

IrishTonyO

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

She got them to transfer 100K to a turkish bank account through electronic fund transfer. To pay for it she used a cheque knowing it would bounce. So bank of Ireland down 100K, Fiona Finnegan up 100K in Turkey.

She paid back the money

"Det Gda Burke said she had now been handed a bank draft in favour of Bank of Ireland for €100,000."

oppenheimer1

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Can you believe this ?!



She stole the money, completely and utterly defrauded a bank for 100k...and she walks away free with no fines or sentence to be served?! There must be more to this. If I defrauded a bank €100,000, would I walk away scot-free?!

The fact that she works for the department of agriculture is somehow relevant?

Bottle_of_Smoke

MikeC101 wrote: »

Fairly likely BoI were able to recall the transfer (or had already done so) without incurring too much of a charge though, as long as they got in touch before she withdrew it from the Turkish bank.

Nope. Used to work for a bank and my department often had to deal with the aftermath of bounced cheques. That money was gone.

irishtonyo wrote:

She paid back the money

"Det Gda Burke said she had now been handed a bank draft in favour of Bank of Ireland for €100,000."

I'd imagine that was a while later, otherwise the guards never would have been involved. Anyhow that would be the same as her breaking into the bank and taking the cash, then when the coppers call round she writes them a cheque.

It's just electronic stealing, its not like downloading an album which is copyright infringement. Unfortunately there seems to be an attitude that this kind of theft is somehow more okay than stealing paper money.

Dannyboy83

I don't understand why her punishment was so lenient, but I'm guessing some consideration was given to the fact that the media would have a field day if Plain Jane was given jail time for 100k, while Fingleton and co have been rewarded for their actions.

oppenheimer1

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I don't understand why her punishment was so lenient, but I'm guessing some consideration was given to the fact that the media would have a field day if Plain Jane was given jail time for 100k, while Fingleton and co have been rewarded for their actions.

Nothing to do with the media. It was her first offence and she paid back the money.Unlikely to reoffend and whats more important, her reputation is ruined. A custodial sentence would have no benefit.

oppenheimer1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nope. Used to work for them and my department often had to deal with the aftermath of bounced cheques. That money was gone.



I'd imagine that was a while later, otherwise the guards never would have been involved. Anyhow that would be the same as her breaking into the bank and taking the cash, then when the coppers call round she writes them a cheque.

It's just electronic stealing, its not like downloading an album which is copyright infringement. Unfortunately there seems to be an attitude that this kind of theft is somehow more okay than stealing paper money.

Are you somehow suggestion there is no difference between armed robbery and Cheque fraud?

johnnyskeleton

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The fact that she works for the department of agriculture is somehow relevant?

Arguably it is not in the public interest to have persons working for a government department who have been convicted of a theft or fraud type offence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Are you somehow suggestion there is no difference between armed robbery and Cheque fraud?

No, I already clearly stated she should not get as severe a sentence as someone who committed armed robbery in post #4. I view this as the same as breaking into a bank at night and taking the cash.

Overheal

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the media. It was her first offence and she paid back the money.

So to get the same sentence (18 months suspended) Eddie Halvey gave back the child that he ran over and killed

Theres a ridiculous number of inconsistencies in the Judicial System.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Nothing to do with the media. It was her first offence and she paid back the money.Unlikely to reoffend and whats more important, her reputation is ruined. A custodial sentence would have no benefit.

I don't believe this is actually true. I've seen people like her from working in a credit department. They don't change. They think they can balance the books with gaps in clearing times but eventually it all falls apart.

It's possible you're right in one sense and perhaps she will change but its just so damn inconsistant. Someone who's caught with a few cannabis plants in their basement as their first offence is just as unlikely to reoffend but they'll go down for a few years. That annoys me, but I'm not suggesting you're in favour of that either.

thebman

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arguably it is not in the public interest to have persons working for a government department who have been convicted of a theft or fraud type offence.

Exactly, I assume she has lost her job over this?

If she paid the money back, she really should have been fined extra on top of it given the actual sentence was suspended.

MikeC101

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Nope. Used to work for them and my department often had to deal with the aftermath of bounced cheques. That money was gone.

On international transfers, or domestic ones? It's easier for domestic ones, because it can be withdrawn a lot more quickly.

I used to work for a bank in this area, we had plenty of cases of fraudulent transfers where we could ask the beneficiary bank to freeze the payment and recall it - as long as the money hadn't been withdrawn from the final bank, and usually the time delay of an international transfer helped with that.

Guess she got to it fast enough in this case though.

P. Breathnach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

... I've seen people like her from working in a credit department....

How much do you actually know about her?

Bottle_of_Smoke

P. Breathnach wrote: »

How much do you actually know about her?

Her personally - nothing, what I'm saying is that if someone is willing to screw a bank over that amount of money on even one occasion it seems a bit naive to suggest they're unlikely to reoffend.

Bottle_of_Smoke

MikeC101 wrote: »

On international transfers, or domestic ones? It's easier for domestic ones, because it can be withdrawn a lot more quickly.

I used to work for a bank in this area, we had plenty of cases of fraudulent transfers where we could ask the beneficiary bank to freeze the payment and recall it - as long as the money hadn't been withdrawn from the final bank, and usually the time delay of an international transfer helped with that.

Guess she got to it fast enough in this case though.

On international. there is perhaps a mechanism but remember cheques could take 5 days to come back unpaid