Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

6 years jail for garlic scam

Options
1…1213151718…23

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    JohnMarston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,881 ✭✭✭JohnMarston


    We can all sleep easy tonight. This madman and his garlic has been locked up.


  • Options
    #423
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    cock robin wrote: »
    His backround ? He was brought up in Tallaght and his parents used to pack fruit and veg in a garage at the side of their house. So what point you are making there escapes me. Unless your making the case that like thousands of other criminals from Tallaght who broke the law got caught and got sentenced, he is no different to any other citizen who knowingly sets out to defraud the state and gets busted. The only difference is that Mr Begley had an excellent standard of living as opposed to some who steal cos they could'nt be bothered to get a job and provide for themself. His motive was either greed or he thought he and he alone should determine the import rates for garlic as he saw fit. In either case he broke the law and now has time to reflect on his actions.

    I had absolutely no clue where he was from when I wrote that post and I don't consider Tallaght a disadvantaged area (anyway I also said disadvantaged "background" not "area"). When I referred to background I mainly referring to his character and that people with extremely poor personal backgrounds (i.e. multiple convictions for violent assault, burglary etc.) regularly have that taken into account when being sentenced. Whereas in this case his background (as a generally decent human being it appears) doesn't hold any sway.

    I've said several times on this thread that he committed a crime and should be punished but I think the punishment given down was excessive and plain wrong.

    Prison in my opinion should be for violent offenders. I do not see the need to keep other people locked behind bars at great cost to the state.


  • Options
    #424
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    dvpower wrote: »
    Yeah. I got the point. It was very clear

    You did make it clear that you didn't with your €10 euro pack of fags not being part of criminal activity? - I simply showed how it was...

    dvpower wrote: »
    If you meant to say something else, then say it, but don't expect us to guess what you really mean.

    Nice backtracking btw - That was what I was saying...if you really didn't understand then I really cant help tbh...If you have to guess then I guess you will have to just hope for the best and maybe stick to simpler discussions.


  • Options
    #425
    cock robin
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭cock robin


    mconigol wrote: »
    I had absolutely no clue where he was from when I wrote that post and I don't consider Tallaght a disadvantaged area (anyway I also said disadvantaged "background" not "area"). When I referred to background I mainly referring to his character and that people with extremely poor personal backgrounds (i.e. multiple convictions for violent assault, burglary etc.) regularly have that taken into account when being sentenced. Whereas in this case his background (as a generally decent human being it appears) doesn't hold any sway.

    I've said several times on this thread that he committed a crime and should be punished but I think the punishment given down was excessive and plain wrong.

    Prison in my opinion should be for violent offenders. I do not see the need to keep other people locked behind bars at great cost to the state.

    Can you not understand that there is no deterrent worse than the loss of liberty. Fining a man of Mr Begleys wealth is not a deterrent. Just out of curiosity what sentence or punishment would you deem applicable in this case and bear in mind that wether or not he is imprisoned Inland Revenue will still get whatever monies are owed by Begley.


  • Options
    #426
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    I don't actually think its an offence to buy street cigarettes, let alone a 'yer honour' offence to which zero telerance needs to be applied.

    Its currently up to the seller to be licensed properly, and to pay the appropriate taxes.

    "Ah sure I didn't do anything wrong...."

    *sigh* Goes and gets coat".....

    AJ - How about actually thinking about what has been written OK?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?


  • Options
    #428
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    smash wrote: »
    Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

    Vampires have infiltrated the government?


  • Options
    #429
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    smash wrote: »
    Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?
    That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

    So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.


  • Options
    #430
    hardCopy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭hardCopy


    smash wrote: »
    Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

    Cost Price * 2.32


  • Options
    #431
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    gozunda wrote: »
    You did make it clear that you didn't with your €10 euro pack of fags not being part of criminal activity? - I simply showed how it was...
    I think you might be mixing me up with someone who said that evading €10 excise duty on a pack of cigarettes isn't criminal activity.
    It is. Just much much less serious.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

    So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.



    No, in reality the man has only himself to blame for getting six years.


  • Options
    #433
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,323 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    gozunda wrote: »
    "Ah sure I didn't do anything wrong...."

    *sigh* Goes and gets coat".....

    AJ - How about actually thinking about what has been written OK?

    OK, You said that buying cigarettes on the street is as bad an offence because when a multiple of people do it the cumulative effect is the same financially as Mr Begleys criminalities. And you talked about how a person could be up in front of the judge for it.

    And I pointed out that it isn't actually (afaik) a criminal offence to buy cigarettes on the street, so therefore to compare it to Begley is wrong.

    I'd agree it should be an offence by the way - I've never done it myself and always buy my cigarettes in shops.


  • Options
    #434
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

    So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.
    Why? Do they dictate sentencing policy too now?


  • Options
    #435
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    dvpower wrote: »
    Why? Do they dictate sentencing policy too now?

    Give it time and they will.


  • Options
    #436
    l.m
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭l.m


    BarackPyjama wrote: »
    He's worse than a rapist. He's a guy who wouldn't pay a 230% import tax on a food stuff. He's evil. Evil I tells ya.
    .

    Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!


  • Options
    #437
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,323 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    l.m wrote: »
    Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!

    Barack was posting ironically.


  • Options
    #438
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    dvpower wrote: »
    I think you might be mixing me up with someone who said that evading €10 excise duty on a pack of cigarettes isn't criminal activity.
    It is. Just much much less serious.

    Here you go...
    dvpower wrote: »
    If you buy a pack of smuggled cigarettes with a loss to Revenue <€10, you think its as serious an offence as this case with a loss of €1.6m?
    ....

    Your response indicated that you did not believe that an individual buying illegal cigarettes was in any way committing a serious offence even when this activity was part of cumulative behaviour which not only eqated with the 1.6 million euro garlic scam but exceeds it by many billions of euro.

    Attempting to claim that those involved in any part of criminal activity bear any less culpability than the sum of the whole is ludricous. Without individuals contributing to such criminal activity there would in this case be no reason for either the seller or smuggler of such dodgy fags.
    This type of behaviour is both a serious offence and a criminal activity imo.


  • Options
    #439
    plasmaguy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,683 ✭✭✭plasmaguy


    l.m wrote: »
    Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!

    1.6 million denied to the taxpayer is a serious crime to be honest.

    In the context of the property tax for example, that's something like the equivalent of 16,000 households.

    There is no question that when people underpay tax, either the government has to borrow more, and its your children who pay it back with interest, or else vital frontline services have to be cut.

    6 years was about right. The unfortunate thing is he will be out in 3.

    How many nurses, teachers and so on will have to be cut this year to pay for this 1.6 shortfall in tax?


  • Options
    #440
    l.m
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭l.m


    I understand the harms on our economy it has I just don't think it's right for him to be treated the same way rapists are


  • Options
    #441
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    l.m wrote: »
    I understand the harms on our economy it has I just don't think it's right for him to be treated the same way rapists are

    Why, because he's not some lower-class "scumbag"? Or some "monster", "animal", "beast" of a rapist?

    He's being treated the same as someone caught for robbing a large amount of money, or defrauding the social welfare of a large sum.

    Or isn't fleecing the state, by extension all of us, out of a seven figure sum a "real crime"?

    Until we implement a better system than prison, this is how it has to be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    OK, You said that buying cigarettes on the street is as bad an offence because when a multiple of people do it the cumulative effect is the same financially as Mr Begleys criminalities. And you talked about how a person could be up in front of the judge for it.

    And I pointed out that it isn't actually (afaik) a criminal offence to buy cigarettes on the street, so therefore to compare it to Begley is wrong.

    I'd agree it should be an offence by the way - I've never done it myself and always buy my cigarettes in shops.

    My apologies - close. As far as I am aware the purchase of fake (and many smuggled cigarettes are counterfeit btw) and undeclared merchandise is illegal.

    Possession of such goods can also be deemed illegal, however it is perhaps beyond the powers that be to follow individuals around and investigate each packet of fags hence resources are directed at the smugglers and sellers.


  • Options
    #443
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Someone got six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

    But on the news tonight.

    Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

    Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.


  • Options
    #444
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    44leto wrote: »
    I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Some gets six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

    Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

    Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.

    The Central Criminal Court has set out their rationale for imposing substantial prison sentences in these kinds of cases, you should have a read of it:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77548631&postcount=384

    But don't even try to trivialise a massive fraud on all of us as "calling onions garlic".


  • Options
    #445
    djk1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 899 ✭✭✭djk1000


    44leto wrote: »
    I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Some gets six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

    Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

    Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.


    If you evade tax, it is fairly easy to do, easy to get away with for a long time (some people are never caught), the tax authorities basically trust a large part of the population to be honest about their taxes on the basis that punishments are so severe when caught that most people see that it's not worth taking even the slightest chance.

    If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

    If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

    That's the thinking anyway!


  • Options
    #446
    mconigol
    Registered Users Posts: 1,583 ✭✭✭mconigol


    cock robin wrote: »
    Can you not understand that there is no deterrent worse than the loss of liberty. Fining a man of Mr Begleys wealth is not a deterrent. Just out of curiosity what sentence or punishment would you deem applicable in this case and bear in mind that wether or not he is imprisoned Inland Revenue will still get whatever monies are owed by Begley.

    Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
    I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

    I think he should have either received a sentence of less than 2 years or had his personal assets stripped. Possibly some kind of house arrest.

    I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.


  • Options
    #447
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    djk1000 wrote: »
    If you evade tax, it is fairly easy to do, easy to get away with for a long time (some people are never caught), the tax authorities basically trust a large part of the population to be honest about their taxes on the basis that punishments are so severe when caught that most people see that it's not worth taking even the slightest chance.

    If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

    If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

    That's the thinking anyway!

    I agree, but if I was the victim in those other crimes reported on tonights news I would feel it was an injustice the family of the murdered 56 year old publically stated so.


  • Options
    #448
    benway
    Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    djk1000 wrote: »
    If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

    If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

    That's the thinking anyway!

    On a side note, increasing the chances of getting caught is a much, much better deterrent than increasing the penalty, or so say the studies ... that I've seen.

    I would normally be dead set against prison in most cases, but I think it's important here that action is seen to be taken against white collar criminals, they've been getting away pretty much scot free for far too long.
    44leto wrote:
    I agree, but if I was the victim in those other crimes reported on tonights news I would feel it was an injustice the family of the murdered 56 year old publically stated so.

    What?

    Anyway, other crimes aren't relevant, the Central Criminal Court have put forward a strong justification of why it's necessary to impose custodial sentences in these cases - if you disagree with them on that, fair enough, but the comparison with completely different crimes doesn't stand up.
    Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
    I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

    I would tend to agree, but whether its right or wrong the courts have recognised deterrence as a valid aim in sentencing for a long time now. You people should really read that judgment ....
    mconigol wrote: »
    I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.
    I agree with this as well, but prison is our default punishment, and I think that the need to treat white collar criminals with the same seriousness as common-or-garden "scumbags" overrides my distaste for prison as a punishment.


  • Options
    #449
    cock robin
    Registered Users Posts: 724 ✭✭✭cock robin


    mconigol wrote: »
    Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
    I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

    I think he should have either received a sentence of less than 2 years or had his personal assets stripped. Possibly some kind of house arrest.

    I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.

    No what you don't see is that Begley is a criminal. Importing heroin is a non violent crime, so using your reckoning no custodial sentence, burglarly is a non violent crime = no custodial sentence, shop lifting = no custodial sentence. All this just cos one greedy fcuk got caught and people like you feel he should just stay at home for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Grow up.


  • Options
    #450
    DominoDub
    Registered Users Posts: 1,572 ✭✭✭DominoDub


    In the Yin Yang world of Irish Law

    Now we see a Man jailed for six years for abuse of daughter

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0312/mulveyr.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    l.m
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭l.m


    cock robin wrote: »
    No what you don't see is that Begley is a criminal. Importing heroin is a non violent crime, so using your reckoning no custodial sentence, burglarly is a non violent crime = no custodial sentence, shop lifting = no custodial sentence. All this just cos one greedy fcuk got caught and people like you feel he should just stay at home for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Grow up.

    No you grow up, stop judging him. He is the owner of a successful company which employes over 100 people, he did not bring his company to success without hard work. Your just jealous or plain ignorant.


Advertisement