Prosecuting corporate crime

Aviator55

As of now nobody has been prosecuted as a result of the very likely criminal corporate misgovernment which led to our present financial straits.
One reason, according to the "Irish Times", is a lack of resources, with only ten Guards working on the Angle-Irish case.

Here's a suggestion. There are lots of newly retired and unemployed accountants and solicitors around.

Many of them would be delighted to help. If we recruited them into the Garda reserve, possibly with modest expenses, they could expedite the convictions of the guilty.

That of course, would be if there was any political will to pursue the guilty, and if our public sector were willing to depart from traditional work practices.

Seloth

Unfortunatly what is quite often the case is that what many of them did was technically not illegal

The Criminal Assets Bureau has to really expand its role alright and your idea is very good

A few more financial laws do need to be put in place!!!

Chuck Stone

The best way to stop corporate crime (imdo) is to stop allowing people to form corporations with limited liability (Corporations are fictional entities - human beings are not).

If people are putting their entire weallth on the line rather than their interest in the corporation then they'd be a hell of a lot more carefull about screwing up.

Seloth

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The best way to stop corporate crime (imdo) is to stop allowing people to form corporations with limited liability (Corporations are fictional entities - human beings are not).

Actually Corporations have equal status as Humans.Being technically private citzens I can remember learning about this in one of my politics modules and being wtf hah

*taken from the wiki*

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Corporations are conceptually immortal but they can "die" when they are "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate 'death', when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[4] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter.[5]

charlemont

It'll never happen here, People are too soft and those in power know it too.
It wont benefit any political party to seriously push for investigations as the public outrage is simply not there.

thebman

Well in the Anglo case, I don't think they are even trying with the modest resources they have. There simply is no political interest in solving the case even if the people involved are trying their best if they can't get access to encrypted files or get people to co-operate with the investigation.

Just seems that if they can't get access to encrypted files, it is likely they aren't trying very hard as it isn't that difficult to hack into some files even if they are well protected. I mean if it is as well protected as their inability to get in suggests, I would suggest that there are plenty of universities that would be interested in examining it for free to work out how they managed to stump people that were "actively trying" to hack into the files.

Either that or there is something legal stopping them from actually attempting to hack the files and the media aren't reporting that part of the story. But even so, it should not be that hard to get people to talk TBH.

Chuck Stone

Seloth wrote: »

Actually Corporations have equal status as Humans.Being technically private citzens I can remember learning about this in one of my politics modules and being wtf hah

*taken from the wiki*

Yep. I'm only getting to grips with how this **** works recently.

Check this out.

The fact that corporations are a creation of the government is not
debatable. In the absence of government intervention, individuals are free to do
any sort of business deals they want. They trade goods, buy and sell labor, lend
money, form partnerships, and engage in an almost infinite variety of
transactions. But they cannot form a corporation – a legal entity that exists
independently of its owners. This requires the government.
Corporations are a great invention of government. They make it possible
to raise vast amounts of capital for major business ventures like building car
factories, laying telecommunications lines, or operating an airline. Corporations
can raise capital far more effectively than business partnerships because the
government gives them the privilege of limited liability. This means that the
owners of the corporation, its shareholders, only stand to lose what they have
invested in a company’s stock. They cannot be held personally liable for any
debts of the company if the company ends up in bankruptcy.

THE CONSERVATIVE NANNY STATE
How the Wealthy Use the Government
to Stay Rich and Get Richer
By Dean Baker
Published

Lockstep

Seloth wrote: »

Unfortunatly what is quite often the case is that what many of them did was technically not illegal

The Criminal Assets Bureau has to really expand its role alright and your idea is very good

A few more financial laws do need to be put in place!!!

Corporate Crime is the domain of the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

Ireland's laws on white collar crime for everything from malfeasance to director liability is extensive but it was always seen as a 'victimless crime' and there was little political will to back it (Someone mugging a pensioner led to calls for them to be hanged whereas WCC had no such impact). To date, not a single person has been jailed for WCC in Ireland.

Hopefully the new government will take on the role given that people realise how damaging it is. There's already been a few bills which have passed on the likes of whistleblower protection and the like.

They cannot be held personally liable for any
debts of the company if the company ends up in bankruptcy.

Untrue under Irish law: if directors act the bollocks then they're personally liable for the debts of the company.

Manach

Given how destructive government overspending is to the economy, perhaps we might see some TDs lead off in handcuffs as well.

Son Of A Vidic

For all the criticism they get sometimes, look at how the yanks hunted down and buried Bernie Madoff and his ilk. Sometimes I think they enjoy putting these 'high fliers' away. I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing such justifiably action in this country unfortunately. Being a corrupt little shít hole for so long, there is a bigger house of cards to come crumbling down if such action was ever taken. Since many were complicit in the mismanagement and financial ruination of this country.

raymon

Manach wrote: »

Given how destructive government overspending is to the economy, perhaps we might see some TDs lead off in handcuffs as well.

That will never happen ...... look at Callely , he will never make it to court for forgery allegations. Just watch as he gets let off despite compelling evidence

Our system is broken

Nodin

Lockstep wrote: »

................

Untrue under Irish law: if directors act the bollocks then they're personally liable for the debts of the company.

Yep. However theres only ever been one prosecution for that (can't remember the name of the law) since the laws inception. As a result if/when theres charges brought in relation to Anglo, its highly unlikely thats the route they'll take.

Corvus Maximus wrote:

For all the criticism they get sometimes, look at how the yanks hunted down and buried Bernie Madoff and his ilk. Sometimes I think they enjoy putting these 'high fliers' away..

A state that holds the "free market" in almost religous regard would be heading for trouble if malfeasance was penalty free. And of course the thing is that the freer the market, the more room there is for corruption, 'sharp practice' and dodgy dealing.

The other thing about Madoff is that he was widely regarded as a fraud and chancer from the late 1990's, most large firms evading dealing with him. Added to that he was investigated at least 5 times in ten years. If nothing else it shows that incompetence and an unwillingness to stir the shit is not a pecularily Irish phenomena.

Lockstep

Nodin wrote: »

Yep. However theres only ever been one prosecution for that (can't remember the name of the law) since the laws inception. As a result if/when theres charges brought in relation to Anglo, its highly unlikely thats the route they'll take.

The Fyffes case?
Mainly as white collar crime was shockingly under-highlighted in Ireland and politicians didn't give a sh!t about it.

There's too much public pressure on them for them to risk it again.

Nodin

Lockstep wrote: »

The Fyffes case?
Mainly as white collar crime was shockingly under-highlighted in Ireland and politicians didn't give a sh!t about it.

There's too much public pressure on them for them to risk it again.

No, Fyffes was insider trading, I think. This was to do with Directors running of a company. I shall have to look it up.

Nodin

This is the man.

The provisions relating to reckless trading were introduced by the Irish government in 1990, in an attempt to deal with malpractice in companies and, in particular, the activities of unscrupulous company directors, who were abusing the concept of limited liability. Under the new provisions, it was no longer necessary to establish fraud in order to render directors personally liable for the debts of a company, recklessness would suffice.

http://newsweaver.ie/fgs/e_article000371236.cfm?x=b11,0,w

johnnyskeleton

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

For all the criticism they get sometimes, look at how the yanks hunted down and buried Bernie Madoff and his ilk. Sometimes I think they enjoy putting these 'high fliers' away. I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing such justifiably action in this country unfortunately. Being a corrupt little shít hole for so long, there is a bigger house of cards to come crumbling down if such action was ever taken. Since many were complicit in the mismanagement and financial ruination of this country.

Thanks to WGU of thepropertypin for the link, but leading them out in handcuffs is all very well, but it is very hard to prove actual fraud:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/will-wall-street-go-free/

Hayte

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

For all the criticism they get sometimes, look at how the yanks hunted down and buried Bernie Madoff and his ilk. Sometimes I think they enjoy putting these 'high fliers' away. I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing such justifiably action in this country unfortunately. Being a corrupt little shít hole for so long, there is a bigger house of cards to come crumbling down if such action was ever taken. Since many were complicit in the mismanagement and financial ruination of this country.

The SEC has a notoriously poor record when prosecuting white collar crime (if it even prosecutes at all). They also bungled the Madoff investigation and only secured a conviction in any event because the scope of the fraud was so brazen. More importantly, the subscribers to the scheme were mainly institutional investors.

Now google institutional investor names + SEC + settlement + liability and prepare to be shocked (or not since it isn't really surprising when you think about it).

JPMorgan recently settled a civil fraud case for $154 million over allegations that it misled investors in the infamous Squared CDO/Magnetar deals. Then again, the investors were smaller non US capital market players, pension funds and non profits so they can take a walk right?

And if that story looks familiar, its because there are alot more just like it. Goldman Sachs were accused of misleading investors over the Abacus 2007 AC-1 deal. They had to eat a $550 million fine which looks big but is actually chump change to the firm. Again, no admission of liability and no criminal prosecution.

Then you hear stuff like this and it begins to dawn on you that there is also an inherant conflict of interest in the investigation and referral of these cases to the Justice Department. I don't know whether to laugh or cry but the golden rule appears to be:

"If you are an institutional capital markets player, fraud is ok as long as you don't screw anyone richer than yourself."

Institutional players have alot of leeway to get what they want because of how plugged in they are to the political lobbying circuit and how indirectly invested they are in political campaigning. See here.