6 years jail for garlic scam

benway · 13-03-2012 12:46pm

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.

I disagree with pretty much every word of that, but especially the last sentence. I don't think there's any more important issue than white collar crime in today's Ireland. You really haven't paid much attention over the past five years, have you?

gurramok · 13-03-2012 12:55pm

Dirk Gently wrote: »

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.

The justice system did. Manslaughter sentence is 5 years, evading tax on garlic equals 6 years. The former is more serious issue to all of us than the latter and the sentence does not reflect that.

cock robin wrote: »

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.

You seem to have something against people who work for a living, how that reflects in anyone's sentencing is beyond belief.

A manslaughter sentence for a person from a poor or rich background who committed the same crime should have no bearing on how wealthy they are and thats before we get into the paltry 5 year term or the 6yr term Claire Nolan received.

benway wrote: »

I disagree with pretty much every word of that, but especially the last sentence. I don't think there's any more important issue than white collar crime in today's Ireland. You really haven't paid much attention over the past five years, have you?

You haven't paid attention. There have been hundreds of murders and thousands of violent crimes committed over the last number of years and the justice system says its ok to commit those crimes as hey you'll only get 5 or 6 years for the offence.

You've nearly admitted it there in the last sentence that you'd rather smuggling of garlic be tackled over violent crime. Congrats on wishing a less safer society.

cock robin · 13-03-2012 12:58pm

benway wrote: »

I disagree with pretty much every word of that, but especially the last sentence. I don't think there's any more important issue than white collar crime in today's Ireland. You really haven't paid much attention over the past five years, have you?

benway this guy is a lost cause. He is without doubt a them and us kinda guy. That said I'm off to work where I will pay my taxes and drive my taxed car to purchase my heavily taxed fags. I may even purchase some apples and garlic but I will not pay tax on either and if by chance I'm busted I shall claim that I am just an honest decent dude and why are the garda not catching rapists and murderers and such like. Failing that I shall just whip out the old cheque book and purchase some justice for myself. Only in Ireland

gurramok · 13-03-2012 1:05pm

cock robin wrote: »

if by chance I'm busted I shall claim that I am just an honest decent dude and why are the garda not catching rapists and murderers and such like. Failing that I shall just whip out the old cheque book and purchase some justice for myself. Only in Ireland

You're making up stuff again.

Both types have been caught by the Garda\Customs and charged. The judges have sentenced both to different levels of sentencing whereby tax evasion is treated more serious than violent crime and that is wrong on so many levels.

benway · 13-03-2012 1:38pm

gurramok wrote: »

tax evasion is treated more serious than violent crime and that is wrong on so many levels.

Who's making things up now? It's treated not as "more serious", but comparably seriously to violent crime, for clearly stated reasons. You still haven't read that judgment, have you?

gurramok · 13-03-2012 1:43pm

benway wrote: »

Who's making things up now? It's treated not as "more serious", but comparably seriously to violent crime, for clearly stated reasons. You still haven't read that judgment, have you?

Garlic evader gets 6 years, Manslaughterer gets 5 years. The message is clear.

irishdude11 · 13-03-2012 2:26pm

gurramok wrote: »

Garlic evader gets 6 years, Manslaughterer gets 5 years. The message is clear.

Yes and that message is not that sentencing in Ireland is ridiculously soft. Manslaughter should see you in jail for at least 10 years, and I mean 10 full years, not 10 years but out in 7 because of good behaviour.

This case was the first time in a long time where I can recall a guy getting a stiff sentence from the Irish courts, this is to be welcomed, if only this were applied across the board and all the bastards in Irish society got a taste of proper justice.

benway · 13-03-2012 2:45pm

gurramok wrote: »

Garlic evader gets 6 years, Manslaughterer gets 5 years. The message is clear.

Garlic evader? Someone who studiously avoids garlic? Call a spade a spade, would ya? Tax evader, white collar criminal.

The message is that they're both serious offences, attracting a significant prison term, that's what I'm taking from it. And I would hope that some of our gombeen men will be thinking the same.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 2:51pm

benway wrote: »

Garlic evader? Someone who studiously avoids garlic? Call a spade a spade, would ya? Tax evader, white collar criminal.

The message is that they're both serious offences, attracting a significant prison term, that's what I'm taking from it. And I would hope that some of our gombeen men will be thinking the same.

So you've changed tack, finally acknowledging that violent crime is serious. You're wrong that it attracts a significant prison term which is only 5 years. A pity you rate it equal to tax evasion rather than more serious than tax evasion.

bamboozle · 13-03-2012 2:54pm

all i'd say on this is that i'd rather the streets be full of 'garlic custom evaders' than scum bag's who try to run down 'fellas' in there car while off their bean on drink and drugs.

cock robin · 13-03-2012 3:06pm

gurramok wrote: »

So you've changed tack, finally acknowledging that violent crime is serious. You're wrong that it attracts a significant prison term which is only 5 years. A pity you rate it equal to tax evasion rather than more serious than tax evasion.

Not one person has said that violent crime is not serious. It is you who is continually comparing squire Begleys crime to that of others. They are not comparible and nor is the sentence. According to you squire Begley should be a free man as if he had done shag all, or maybe a token spell in prison just to sate the masses. Where as his sentence reflects what the judicary feels is appropiate for his crime.

gurramock to Squire Begley: (doffs cap) nice day at work squire.
Squire Begley: oh yes plenty of lolly lodged, clean my boots will you.

gurramock: I see them rapists and murderers were at it again.
Squire Begley: they should be shot, not good decent people like you and I eh! gurramock.

gurramock: should I use my tongue first and then polish to a brilliant shine with my hair Squire.
Squire Begley: I shall leave that up to you old fruit, god your a decent chap.

gurramock: thank you very much squire. Ahhh! I just came, god bless the squire.

benway · 13-03-2012 3:08pm

gurramok wrote: »

So you've changed tack, finally acknowledging that violent crime is serious.

Where have I denied that violent crime is serious? Show me? The point all along has been that tax evasion is also serious, for different reasons. Also:

gurramok wrote: »

You haven't paid attention. There have been hundreds of murders and thousands of violent crimes committed over the last number of years and the justice system says its ok to commit those crimes as hey you'll only get 5 or 6 years for the offence.

You've nearly admitted it there in the last sentence that you'd rather smuggling of garlic be tackled over violent crime. Congrats on wishing a less safer society.

First up, whatever about violent criminals "only" getting six years, in the individual circumstances of the case, our record of locking up white collar criminals up until now is pretty much non-existent.

And, from a few pages back:

benway wrote: »

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?

Lookit, would you just come out and say it - you don't think white collar crime is a problem, do you? You're too worried about junkies and "scumbags", let those nice respectable folks do what they like, sure who are they hurting anyhow?

What about 9 1/2 years for dole fraud as well? Surely that's warranted, sure dole bludgers haven't contributed nawthin', compared to an oootraprenoor?

gurramok · 13-03-2012 3:11pm

cock robin wrote: »

Not one person has said that violent crime is not serious. It is you who is continually comparing squire Begleys crime to that of others. They are not comparible and nor is the sentence. According to you squire Begley should be a free man as if he had done shag all, or maybe a token spell in prison just to sate the masses. Where as his sentence reflects what the judicary feels is appropiate for his crime.

No, I did not say Begley should be a free man or serve a token sentence. Good to see we have a fan of the judiciary amongst us, a bunch of untouchables living in fairyland.

cock robin wrote: »

gurramock to Squire Begley: (doffs cap) nice day at work squire.
Squire Begley: oh yes plenty of lolly lodged, clean my boots will you.

gurramock: I see them rapists and murderers were at it again.
Squire Begley: they should be shot, not good decent people like you and I eh! gurramock.

gurramock: should I use my tongue first and then polish to a brilliant shine with my hair Squire.
Squire Begley: I shall leave that up to you old fruit, god your a decent chap.

gurramock: thank you very much squire. Ahhh! I just came, god bless the squire.

Who is gurramock?

cock robin · 13-03-2012 3:17pm

gurramok wrote: »

No, I did not say Begley should be a free man or serve a token sentence. Good to see we have a fan of the judiciary amongst us, a bunch of untouchables living in fairyland.

Who is gurramock?

Tis you with a spelling error. Jaysus your quick.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 3:19pm

benway wrote: »

Where have I denied that violent crime is serious? Show me?

Here:

benway wrote:

I don't think there's any more important issue than white collar crime in today's Ireland

There ya go, let the violent crims get not what they deserve.

benway wrote: »

First up, whatever about violent criminals "only" getting six years, in the individual circumstances of the case, our record of locking up white collar criminals up until now is pretty much non-existent.

Thats the judiciary at fault, ain't it? You have to say yes to be consistent.

benway wrote: »

Lookit, would you just come out and say it - you don't think white collar crime is a problem, do you? You're too worried about junkies and "scumbags", let those nice respectable folks do what they like, sure who are they hurting anyhow?

What about 9 1/2 years for dole fraud as well? Surely that's warranted, sure dole bludgers haven't contributed nawthin', compared to an oootraprenoor?

Putting false words into my mouth. I have no problem locking up white collar crims, their sentences should be appropriate to all types of crime and at the moment thanks to the judicary, you'd get less for manslaughter.

The judiciary have decided that killing a person is of less relevance than tax evasion, they set the par.

cock robin · 13-03-2012 3:21pm

gurramok wrote: »

Putting false words into my mouth. I have no problem locking up with collar crims, their sentences should be appropriate to all types of crime and at the moment thanks to the judicary, you'd get less for manslaughter.

QUOTE]

What's a with collar crim ?

gurramok · 13-03-2012 3:26pm

cock robin wrote: »

What's a with collar crim ?

Fixed for you and your broken quotes. Just because there is a c before the k in your name, there isn't in mine! At least get my name right next time.

cock robin · 13-03-2012 3:59pm

gurramok wrote: »

Fixed for you and your broken quotes. Just because there is a c before the k in your name, there isn't in mine! At least get my name right next time.

Getting a bit tetchy are we. Of course your command of the english language is like Shakespeare's and you're so observant. Tis a pity you can't see the obvious flaws in your argument. Apologies about your name it was not intentional just an error on my part.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 4:05pm

cock robin wrote: »

Tis a pity you can't see the obvious flaws in your argument.

There are no flaws. What I see is a judiciary whose number one priority is to protect the State's revenues where sentencing for violent crime is near the bottom of their list.

The message is clear, obey the laws on Customs & Excise and you'll be fine. Disobey the laws on violent crime and you'll be fine too.

cock robin · 13-03-2012 4:11pm

gurramok wrote: »

There are no flaws. What I see is a judiciary whose number one priority is to protect the State's revenues where sentencing for violent crime is near the bottom of their list.

The message is clear, obey the laws on Customs & Excise and you'll be fine. Disobey the laws on violent crime and you'll be fine too.

That is what you think. Simple rule for all citizens is wether or not you agree with any aspect of our country's law, be it criminal law or laws in relation to inland revenue. Obey them and you will come to no harm. Disobey them and take your chances in court and pay what ever penalty the court decides. Surely that's fair enough.

benway · 13-03-2012 4:12pm

gurramok wrote: »

There ya go, let the violent crims get not what they deserve.

That's not a denial that violent crime is serious. What part of "not an either/or" don't you understand? Violent crime has been treated seriously for as long as we've had a legal system - its only now that some of us are waking up to the need to deal with white collar crime equally seriously - after the damage that's been done, I don't think there's any bigger issue in today's Ireland, as I said.

gurramok wrote: »

Thats the judiciary at fault, ain't it? You have to say yes to be consistent.

And the Revenue and other prosecuting authorities, and the public for treating white collar crime like a non-issue. *ahem*

gurramok wrote: »

Putting false words into my mouth. I have no problem locking up with collar crims, their sentences should be appropriate to all types of crime and at the moment thanks to the judicary, you'd get less for manslaughter.

The judiciary have decided that killing a person is of less relevance than tax evasion, they set the par.

False words? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, old chap.

Sentencing doesn't work like that, individual sentences are handed down based on individual circumstances. Is the par for manslaughter 8 years or 15 years?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/murphyj.html

The answer is that it's neither - it depends on the circumstances.

A comparison between different cases involving unlawful killings is misleading, never mind between unlawful kilking and tax evasion. But I don't think the intention here is really to make a meaningful comparison, is it?

gurramok · 13-03-2012 4:26pm

benway wrote: »

That's not a denial that violent crime is serious. What part of "not an either/or" don't you understand? Violent crime has been treated seriously for as long as we've had a legal system - its only now that some of us are waking up to the need to deal with white collar crime equally seriously - after the damage that's been done, I don't think there's any bigger issue in today's Ireland, as I said.

If violent crime has been treated seriously as you say, why are sentences so light? "Mitigating circumstances" is a cop-out.

benway wrote: »

And the Revenue and other prosecuting authorities, and the public for treating white collar crime like a non-issue. *ahem*

False words? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, old chap.

Sentencing doesn't work like that, individual sentences are handed down based on individual circumstances. Is the par for manslaughter 8 years or 15 years?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0622/murphyj.html

The answer is that it's neither - it depends on the circumstances.

A comparison between different cases involving unlawful killings is misleading, never mind between unlawful kilking and tax evasion. But I don't think the intention here is really to make a meaningful comparison, is it?

Manslaughter= at least 15 years it should be. No possibility of release beforehand. Punching someone ending up killing him or ramming a car into someone should result in a sentence like 15 years, not 5 or 6 years.

The message has been sent from the judiciary that violent crime is tolerated.

benway · 13-03-2012 5:37pm

gurramok wrote: »

If violent crime has been treated seriously as you say, why are sentences so light? "Mitigating circumstances" is a cop-out.

Manslaughter= at least 15 years it should be. No possibility of release beforehand. Punching someone ending up killing him or ramming a car into someone should result in a sentence like 15 years, not 5 or 6 years.

Sentences aren't "so light". There are as many examples of unusually long sentences as there are of unusually short ones.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cwsnsnidsn/
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/limerickman_gets_15_years_for_manslaughter_of_mark_moloney_in_drive_by_shooting_1_2368941#
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ididgbmhgb/
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfmheyqlkfql/rss2/
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/teen-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-killing-of-neighbour-496479.html
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/snauauaugb/

The Irish system recognises that no two situations are exactly the same, and assigns the sentence by reference to the offence, and to the offender.

I'm not even talking about mitigation, different specific circumstances involve different degrees of moral culpability. Although, while I'm at it, I don't see the streets being made much safer by putting away someone for 15 years when the likelihood of reoffending is low.

gurramok wrote: »

The message has been sent from the judiciary that violent crime is tolerated.

How does sentencing a massive tax evader to 6 years tell us anything about violent crime? Explain that to me.

Seems like this is all a bullsh!t smokescreen to me ... as unpleasant as that sounds.

mconigol · 13-03-2012 6:30pm

Heres a dentist who just seteled a 1.7million euro tax bill...as well as a bunch of other people
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0313/revenue-business.html

I suppose all these people need to be locked away too???

benway · 13-03-2012 6:47pm

mconigol wrote: »

Heres a dentist who just seteled a 1.7million euro tax bill...as well as a bunch of other people
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0313/revenue-business.html

I suppose all these people need to be locked away too???

Where willful, systematic fraud can be shown, like in Begley's case, they should be charged, whether a custodial sentence is appropriate in the particular circumstances is a matter for the judge.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 6:56pm

benway wrote: »

Sentences aren't "so light". There are as many examples of unusually long sentences as there are of unusually short ones.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cwsnsnidsn/
http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/limerickman_gets_15_years_for_manslaughter_of_mark_moloney_in_drive_by_shooting_1_2368941#
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/ididgbmhgb/
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfmheyqlkfql/rss2/
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/teen-guilty-of-manslaughter-for-killing-of-neighbour-496479.html
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/snauauaugb/

The Irish system recognises that no two situations are exactly the same, and assigns the sentence by reference to the offence, and to the offender.

I'm not even talking about mitigation, different specific circumstances involve different degrees of moral culpability.

How does sentencing a massive tax evader to 6 years tell us anything about violent crime? Explain that to me.

1- Sentence for killing a Garda which does carry a higher sentence. Why not murder is unreal, similar for all the below
2 - Its actually 8 yrs for manslaughter, read again

Mr Justice Barry White imposed the statutory minimum sentence for ten years on the firearm charge. He said he had to take his plea and young age into consideration when deciding on the sentence for manslaughter and imposed eight years

(3yrs suspended)
3-Unarmed man stabbed in the chest and its manslaughter, crazy stuff. 15yrs is good, should be more.
4- 15yrs for chopping up someone. How far do you go to get the maximum?
5-What was the sentence?
6- 14yrs, another stabbing.

benway wrote: »

Although, while I'm at it, I don't see the streets being made much safer by putting away someone for 15 years when the likelihood of reoffending is low.

There have been cases of reoffending posted here on boards in the past. One comes to mind the burglar who chopped the artists fingers off.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/butcher-who-cut-off-artists-fingers-during-breakin-is-jailed-for-16-years-2923121.html

Kenny has a number of previous convictions for theft and a conviction from 1998 for a serious assault.

In that incident he broke into the home of a 58-year-old man with whom he had an issue and tied him up; when the man tried to escape, he stabbed him a number of times. When the man escaped over a balcony he turned his attention to the man's partner and stabbed her 10 times. He received a four-year sentence for that offence.

benway · 13-03-2012 7:33pm

gurramok wrote: »

4- 15yrs for chopping up someone. How far do you go to get the maximum?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1020/1224306125492.html

Are you getting the point here? The sentences vary depending on the offence, and the offender. This is how our system works. There's no reality in comparing sentences for the same offence, never mind for different offences. You will admit that these are at the top end of the scale, with offences at the lower end attracting shorter sentences. It's not true to say that 6 years or whatever is "par" for manslaughter, because there's no such thing as "par" for manslaughter.

gurramok wrote: »

There have been cases of reoffending posted here on boards in the past. One comes to mind the burglar who chopped the artists fingers off.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/butcher-who-cut-off-artists-fingers-during-breakin-is-jailed-for-16-years-2923121.html

The recidivism rate for those convicted of homicide offences is only around 10% if I remember correctly, don't have the figures to hand. So slapping 15 year sentences on everyone convicted of manslaughter won't make the streets safer by reason of incapacitation. There may be a moral ground for heavier sentencing, but that's not the point you're making.

Anyway, this is still all a side-show. Long and short of it is that the sentence imposed on Begley has no bearing whatsoever on those imposed for violent crimes - it's a different thing entirely.

The CCA found that there are pressing reasons to impose custodial sentences on guys like Begley, they're set out in the Judgment in that Murray case, which I've linked at least five times in this thread - I'd strongly suggest that you read it and come back if you have problems with their reasoning, this comparison with violent crimes is pretty much played out at this stage.

gurramok · 13-03-2012 7:45pm

benway wrote: »

The CCA found that there are pressing reasons to impose custodial sentences on guys like Begley, they're set out in the Judgment in that Murray case, which I've linked at least five times in this thread - I'd strongly suggest that you read it and come back if you have problems with their reasoning, this comparison with violent crimes is pretty much played out at this stage.

I had read it a few times hence my objection to their fingerpointing at the "public revenue" as a priority. You may ask where is the priority, its in the sentencing as highlighted many times.

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

This is not at all to suggest that crimes involving the loss of public revenue are somehow victimless crimes. Quite the contrary: offences of this kind strike at the heart of the principles of equity, equality of treatment and social solidarity on which the entire edifice of the taxation and social security systems lean. This is especially so at a time of emergency so far as the public finances are concerned.

Using the recession as an excuse is pathetic. Me thinks they want to do this in order to protect their huge salaries and not in the name of 'social solidarity'

cock robin · 13-03-2012 8:45pm

Still at it gurramok still defending a criminal. Given that Begley most likely had an adequate defence team to put his case before the court and they failed. What might I ask is your solo campaign going to achieve. The man you so vehimently defend is now mentioned along with the most vile criminals and even the best defence team his money could buy did not stoop so low as to offer in his defence any of the arguments you have put forward. Can you not just accept that justice has been served in this case. Obviously not to your satisfaction but to the satisfaction of the Irish judicial system. He will appeal and I wish him luck in that regard. Just as every other criminal has that right so does Begley. He may get a reduced sentence but it will not be based on comparisons such as the ones you have made.

gozunda · 14-03-2012 12:36am

gurramok - if you take a look at this and the Socialist thread ongoing atm you will see more or less the same suspect self proclaimed socialists (sps's) banging on about 'doing' the rich capitalist b*st*rds by taxing them into oblivion to right all the wrongs as defined by socialist theory OR where the rich are caught committing a crime, that harder sentencing be passed in their case than that given to poor miscreants that are really are just misunderstood...

This and the other thread both show a distinct violent socio / economic class hatred directed at anybody preceived as better off than themselves and anyone who dares disagree with them.

The use of Logic and reasoning does not appear to have any noticeable effect on this group tbh

6 years jail for garlic scam

Comments