6 years jail for garlic scam

Stovepipe

Hi all,
Firstly, what else did he get away with? How much else did he get away with? If he did it, who else is doing it and how much is it costing us ? This is no victimless crime; it was a cynical attempt to defraud the State and the taxpayers. Having a huge duty on garlic may not be right in the great scheme of things but if it is necessary to avoid the destruction of local businesses, then it has to happen.The guy is a thief, plain and simple and it was also out of order for the judge to state that the guy was a decent man.He clearly wasn't if he believed it okay to steal from the State. **** him, I hope he enjoys slopping out.

regards
Stovepipe

benway

gurramok wrote: »

There is no rationale behind it, it will not stop any person on person violence one iota, the man is not a danger to the public. 6 years is excessive, you'd get less for manslaughter as highlighted earlier in the thread.

Have you read that judgment at all?

The whole point is that white collar crime has serious social consequences, and needs to be addressed. It's not supposed to "stop any person on person violence", where are you getting that idea from?

In the case of offences involving the public purse, deterrence plays an important value in the sentencing process. In the context of frauds upon the public revenue, deterrence is an important consideration, in that it is a necessary quid pro quo of social solidarity. It gives an assurance to the hard-pressed bona fide taxpayer that the State will both collect and distribute its revenue fairly and that those who defraud will be sternly dealt with. Some element of severity is necessary to ensure that taxpayers will pay the State what has been deemed by law to be properly due and to assure those who rely on social security payments that public support for the needy will not be undermined by an official culture which either turns a blind eye to those who commit illegal tax evasion on the one hand, or social security fraud on the other,or which is indifferent to these consequences.

We therefore suggest for the future guidance of sentencing courts that significant and systematic frauds directed upon the public revenue - whether illegal tax evasion on the one hand or social security fraud on the other - should generally meet with an immediate and appreciable custodial sentence, although naturally the sentence to be imposed in any given case must have appropriate regard to the individual circumstances of each accused.

gurramok

benway wrote: »

Have you read that judgment at all?

The whole point is that white collar crime has serious social consequences, and needs to be addressed. It's not supposed to "stop any person on person violence", where are you getting that idea from?

So what you're saying is that tacking white collar crime(smuggling garlic) is more important that jailing murderers.

mconigol

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.

Absolutely I do see him as a criminal. I said repeatedly in this thread that I do not question the fact that he committed a crime. It's the sentence I have an issue with.

I could use your same argument that people like you feel he should just stay in prison for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Expect that way nothing more is achieved.

reprazant

gurramok wrote: »

So what you're saying is that tacking white collar crime(smuggling garlic) is more important that jailing murderers.

Are we just making up sensationalist interpretations now?

I can do that.

So what you're saying is that tacking white collar crime is not important and that nobody who commits tax evasion should go to jail.

Am I doing it right?

Fuinseog

gurramok wrote: »

There is no rationale behind it, it will not stop any person on person violence one iota, the man is not a danger to the public. 6 years is excessive, you'd get less for manslaughter as highlighted earlier in the thread.

if i decide to go stealing from shops I would not be a danger to the public and should not get a custodial sentence. If I get caught I could pay back some of what the goods are worth.
its only scumbags who should go to jail not 'decent' men. he committed a crime making him a criminal.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

So what you're saying is that tacking white collar crime(smuggling garlic) is more important that jailing murderers.

Since when did this become an either/or? I think that both need to be dealt with. You, on the other hand, seem to think that white collar criminals should get a free pass, right?

gurramok

reprazant wrote: »

Are we just making up sensationalist interpretations now?

I can do that.

So what you're saying is that tacking white collar crime is not important and that nobody who commits tax evasion should go to jail.

Am I doing it right?

No, you misread.

Judging by the sentencing of criminals in this country, considering somebody gets 5 years for manslaughter, smuggling garlic should receive a much smaller sentence.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

No, you misread.

Judging by the sentencing of criminals in this country, considering somebody gets 5 years for manslaughter, smuggling garlic should receive a much smaller sentence.

No, they shouldn't. Different considerations apply, and each case is dealt with on its individual facts, and the individual circumstances of the offender.

If you must compare, 9 1/2 years for €250k dole fraud is a better reference point. Out of curiosity, do you think that's excessive?

gurramok

benway wrote: »

No, they shouldn't. Different considerations apply, and each case is dealt with on its individual facts, and the individual circumstances of the offender.

If you must compare, 9 1/2 years for €250k dole fraud is a better reference point. Out of curiosity, do you think that's excessive?

Link to such a case? So you're now saying for definite, fraud of whatever means is more important than locking away violent criminals.

cournioni

Harsh sentence, however he shouldn't be made out to be a victim, he made huge profits out of this while others in the same business followed the rules and made far less than he did.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

Link to such a case? So you're now saying for definite, fraud of whatever means is more important than locking away violent criminals.

The judgment above that I asked you to read before commenting further.

They both need to be addressed, and we certainly shouldn't underplay the significance of white collar crime just because there is also violent crime. Read the judgment.

And I am very curious as to whether you think the sentence was excessive in that one.

cock robin

mconigol wrote: »

Absolutely I do see him as a criminal. I said repeatedly in this thread that I do not question the fact that he committed a crime. It's the sentence I have an issue with.

I could use your same argument that people like you feel he should just stay in prison for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Expect that way nothing more is achieved.

I think he should stay in prison until he is released, it was you that suggested he should be asset stripped and put under house arrest. Nothing more needs to be achieved. A criminal was caught and imprisoned thats it. Justice at it's finest. You however would see a two tier justice system that would allow Begley pay his way out of prison while those that cannot afford to stay put. I for one have had my faith restored in our criminal justice system as a result of this case. We are all subject to the same rules and we all face them same consequences if caught.

gurramok

benway wrote: »

The judgment above that I asked you to read before commenting further.

They both need to be addressed, and we certainly shouldn't underplay the significance of white collar crime just because there is also violent crime. Read the judgment.

And I am very curious as to whether you think the sentence was excessive in that one.

You simply do not get it.

The par for sentencing has already been set via the sentencing of violent criminals.

A safer society needs violent criminals locked away MORESO than garlic smugglers.

cock robin

gurramok wrote: »

No, you misread.

Judging by the sentencing of criminals in this country, considering somebody gets 5 years for manslaughter, smuggling garlic should receive a much smaller sentence.

Fraud on the scale of Mr Begleys is a premeditated crime and in his case perpetraited over a number of years. Where as murder/manslaughter are acts commited in the heat of the moment. Premeditated murder is always followed by a harsher sentence. As some here have said he only came clean when he got caught. He did not walk to the revenue commisioners and hand himself in. He was caught and who knows what else he was capable of. He seemed quite content to conduct his business in an illegal fashion while portraying the persona of a honest decent busisnessman. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was anything but honest thats why today and for the forseeable future he will slop out with every other criminal caught and convicted by the same courts.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

You simply do not get it.

Oh, I think I get it alright.

Answer the question - is 9 1/2 years for €250k dole fraud excessive?

dvpower

gurramok wrote: »

A safer society needs violent criminals locked away MORESO than garlic smugglers.

So we should be increasing the sentencing for violent criminals then, not reducing it for smugglers

Dirk Gently

gurramok wrote: »

Link to such a case? So you're now saying for definite, fraud of whatever means is more important than locking away violent criminals.

depends on the scale of the fraud I suppose. Large scale fraud, individual or cultural universal acceptance that fraud is ok can deprive the state of much needed funds for example health, education, special needs etc. It's all fun and games and civilised until people die because of delays in treatment or cuts in services or your special needs kid cant get the help he needs because someone (or everyone) decides to withhold those funds to enrich themselves. Fraud becomes a pretty barbaric crime then, affecting hundreds and thousands of people compared to affecting one family who are the victim of a violent crime. It also puts jobs at risk, i.e the jobs of those people and businesses trying to compete by not breaking the law. Fraud has consequences, often devastating consequences on society. They're invisible consequences though, just like fraud is an invisible crime.

The sentence appears harsh because people can relate more to a violent thug, doesn't mean he’s a bigger danger to society though. IMO a sentence like this is long overdue, there was a whole class of people who were previously above the law. Anglo were a big player in breaking up thousands of Irish families by forcing kids to emigrate and impoverishing those who remained, but hey, they didn't punch anyone in the face so no crime right?

Murder and man slaughter should have long sentences, that doesn't mean fraud should be excused from prison sentence because our murder sentences are inadequate, that just means our murder sentences are inadequate.

gurramok

cock robin wrote: »

Fraud on the scale of Mr Begleys is a premeditated crime and in his case perpetraited over a number of years. Where as murder/manslaughter are acts commited in the heat of the moment. Premeditated murder is always followed by a harsher sentence. As some here have said he only came clean when he got caught. He did not walk to the revenue commisioners and hand himself in. He was caught and who knows what else he was capable of. He seemed quite content to conduct his business in an illegal fashion while portraying the persona of a honest decent busisnessman. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was anything but honest thats why today and for the forseeable future he will slop out with every other criminal caught and convicted by the same courts.

Fairytale stuff. How exactly will it protect society? Was this fraudster attacking people on the street?

benway wrote: »

Oh, I think I get it alright.

Answer the question - is 9 1/2 years for €250k dole fraud excessive?

Its excessive when compared to sentences for violent crims. If we had proper sentencing for violent crims, you'll find the vast majority of posters would have no problem with 6 yrs for garlic.

dvpower wrote: »

So we should be increasing the sentencing for violent criminals then, not reducing it for smugglers

Yes for the former and no to the latter. As said(latest been the Claire Nolan sentence), violent crime is more of a danger to society than a garlic fraudster.

gurramok

Dirk Gently wrote: »

depends on the scale of the fraud I suppose. Large scale fraud, individual or cultural universal acceptance that fraud is ok can deprive the state of much needed funds for example health, education, special needs etc. It's all fun and games and civilised until people die because of delays in treatment or cuts in services or your special needs kid cant get the help he needs because someone (or everyone) decides to withhold those funds to enrich themselves. Fraud becomes a pretty barbaric crime then, affecting hundreds and thousands of people compared to affecting one family who are the victim of a violent crime. It also puts jobs at risk, i.e the jobs of those people and businesses trying to compete by not breaking the law. Fraud has consequences, often devastating consequences on society. They're invisible consequences though, just like fraud is an invisible crime.

The sentence appears harsh because people can relate more to a violent thug, doesn't mean he’s a bigger danger to society though. IMO a sentence like this is long overdue, there was a whole class of people who were previously above the law. Anglo were a big player in breaking up thousands of Irish families by forcing kids to emigrate and impoverishing those who remained, but hey, they didn't punch anyone in the face so no crime right?

Murder and man slaughter should have long sentences, that doesn't mean fraud should be excused from prison sentence because our murder sentences are inadequate, that just means our murder sentences are inadequate.

Thats very well, your point is directed at government mismanagement of the health services and financial sector.

You sound like one from the same camp who think jailing people for having no dog or tv licence is more important than jailing junkies who commit terror on our streets daily.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

Its excessive when compared to sentences for violent crims. If we had proper sentencing for violent crims, you'll find the vast majority of posters would have no problem with 6 yrs for garlic.



Yes for the former and no to the latter. As said(latest been the Claire Nolan sentence), violent crime is more of a danger to society than a garlic fraudster.

The garlic is a smokescreen - he's a tax evader and a white collar criminal. Are you saying that white collar crime isn't a serious problem in this country? Really?

And I'm not asking you whether 9 1/2 years is excessive by comparison to anything, I'm asking whether it's an excessive sentence for a €250k dole fraud?

Also, what do you think of the CCA's reasoning in that judgment?

gurramok

benway wrote: »

The garlic is a smokescreen - he's a tax evader and a white collar criminal. Are you saying that white collar crime isn't a serious problem in this country? Really?

And I'm not asking you whether 9 1/2 years is excessive by comparison to anything, I'm asking whether it's an excessive sentence for a €250k dole fraud?

Also, what do you think of the CCA's reasoning in that judgment?

Violent crime is more of a threat to our lives than tax evasion, the message has been sent many times that junkie terror on our streets is a trivial issue as smuggling garlic is more important.

cock robin

gurramok wrote: »

Fairytale stuff. How exactly will it protect society? Was this fraudster attacking people on the street?

It will mean that honest buisness can go abot their job of work happy in the knowledge that the playing field is now level. Society is equally at risk from corrupt practice as it is violent crime. If you think that asking was Begley attacking people on the street is a valid question then you really have not read the case properly.



Its excessive when compared to sentences for violent crims. If we had proper sentencing for violent crims, you'll find the vast majority of posters would have no problem with 6 yrs for garlic.

It's not "6 years for garlic" it's six years for knowingly and willfully defrauding the state through tax evasion for self enrichment.



Yes for the former and no to the latter. As said(latest been the Claire Nolan sentence), violent crime is more of a danger to society than a garlic fraudster.

Your method of thinking is a danger to society. If you have money and can buy your way out of prison then do so if you don't then tough. What sort of message would that send out. Don't bother paying the appropiate tax just stash a little away in case your caught and then whip out the cheque book and write the crime off. FFS it's people like you that have brought Greece to it's knees. People need to pay tax, the goverment sets tax rates not the self interested. I smoke for example and minus tax the fags would be around a euro, I can't just decide to walk out of the store and not bother paying the correct amount. My car tax is €1500 but not to worry I wont tax the car I will just whip out the cheque book if I'm caught.

benway

gurramok wrote: »

Violent crime is more of a threat to our lives than tax evasion, the message has been sent many times that junkie terror on our streets is a trivial issue as smuggling garlic is more important.

They're both important, for different reasons. The judgment deals with this, you should read it.

It's starting to look very much like you're trying to downplay the significance of this offence, because nice respectable folks aren't "real" criminals anyway, right? No, they'd never fleece the country, oh no. I mean, it's not like tens of thousands are being driven out of the country owing to an economic crisis caused in large part by white collar crime, is it?

It's those nasty lower class junkies we really need to worry about, forget about those nice white collar chaps, right?

Dirk Gently

gurramok wrote: »

Thats very well, your point is directed at government mismanagement of the health services and financial sector.

You sound like one from the same camp who think jailing people for having no dog or tv licence is more important than jailing junkies who commit terror on our streets daily.

The point was directed at you and those who feel fraud is a victimless or low impact crime.
Where will we get the money to jail all these terrorist junkies you fear if much needed tax revenue to arrest and jail them is withheld without fear of punishment? One man evaded 16,000 household charges. How much more revenue could we generate if white collar crime was seen as what it is, crime. But sure we can always squeeze every last cent out of ordinary people to make up the difference right?

Worztron

CB19Kevo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0309/begleyp.html

''The head of Ireland's largest fruit and vegetable producers has been jailed for six years for a €1.6m scam involving the importation of garlic.
Paul Begley, 46, avoided paying customs duty on over 1,000 tonnes of garlic from China by having them labelled as apples.
Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard the import duty on garlic is "inexplicably" high and can be up to 232%.
In contrast, onions have an import duty of 9%.
The maximum sentence for the offence is five years in prison or a fine of three times the value of the goods.
Judge Martin Nolan imposed the maximum term on one count and one year on another count.''

Is this a bit excessive when you would get a lesser sentence for a serious assault ?

He should have got this:
A massive fine (at least a 6 figure sum).
Pay every cent in tax back.
A huge amount of community service.
Maybe 6 months with 5.5 years suspended (a 2nd offense would automatically get an extremely long sentence).

If this guy gets 6 years then the bankers, developers, politicians and other cohorts that ruined Ireland should be jailed forever.

After he does 6 years - will he still have to pay back all the tax? It will cost the state a huge amount to keep him locked up.

gurramok

cock robin wrote: »

Your method of thinking is a danger to society. If you have money and can buy your way out of prison then do so if you don't then tough. What sort of message would that send out. Don't bother paying the appropiate tax just stash a little away in case your caught and then whip out the cheque book and write the crime off. FFS it's people like you that have brought Greece to it's knees. People need to pay tax, the goverment sets tax rates not the self interested. I smoke for example and minus tax the fags would be around a euro, I can't just decide to walk out of the store and not bother paying the correct amount. My car tax is €1500 but not to worry I wont tax the car I will just whip out the cheque book if I'm caught.

No, you did not read properly. I said its still a crime and a jail sentence is appropriate, 6 years is too excessive.

gurramok

benway wrote: »

They're both important, for different reasons. The judgment deals with this, you should read it.

It's starting to look very much like you're trying to downplay the significance of this offence, because nice respectable folks aren't "real" criminals anyway, right? No, they'd never fleece the country, oh no. I mean, it's not like tens of thousands are being driven out of the country owing to an economic crisis caused in large part by white collar crime, is it?

It's those nasty lower class junkies we really need to worry about, forget about those nice white collar chaps, right?

Downplay? I did not set the par, the justice system has downplayed sentencing for murderers, manslaughterers, rapists etc. These are far more important issues to society than evading tax on garlic.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

The point was directed at you and those who feel fraud is a victimless or low impact crime.
Where will we get the money to jail all these terrorist junkies you fear if much needed tax revenue to arrest and jail them is withheld without fear of punishment? One man evaded 16,000 household charges. How much more revenue could we generate if white collar crime was seen as what it is, crime. But sure we can always squeeze every last cent out of ordinary people to make up the difference right?

Wrong, I did not say fraud is a victimless crime. I said smuggling garlic should receive a much smaller sentence than what violent criminals receive.

Dirk Gently

gurramok wrote: »

Downplay? I did not set the par, the justice system has downplayed sentencing for murderers, manslaughterers, rapists etc. These are far more important issues to society than evading tax on garlic.



Wrong, I did not say fraud is a victimless crime. I said smuggling garlic should receive a much smaller sentence than what violent criminals receive.

whats garlic got to do with anything. he defrauded the state of 1.6 mill in a time of national crisis. call a spade a spade and stop comparing garlic to charles manson.

cock robin

gurramok wrote: »

No, you did not read properly. I said its still a crime and a jail sentence is appropriate, 6 years is too excessive.

That's very decent of you. Maybe the judge realises that Begley will never serve the full six years, the chances are that he will be released in time for xmas. It is to make an example and to put the fear of our judicary into like minded crooks that think it's ok to commit this type of crime. don't get me wrong I don't want to see anyone in prison, only those that deserve to be there. It cannot be easy for the dude, gone are the finer things in his life, his wife his kids his most probably lavish lifestyle. But no-one asked him to break the law. While he is languishing in a smelly damp cell locked in for most of the day with some weirdo for company he might understand why taxes are a nessecary evil. The tax he decided not to pay could have provided a better standard of acomadation for non violent offenders.