6 years jail for garlic scam

spockety

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

No one grows it commercially because its too wet, why do you think most european garlic is grown in Spain and France? That argument is like the fellow who manages to grown a peach tree after 3 years of trying and then expects to see Irish peaches in the supermarket.

Not surprised your man got convicted, he hadn't got a great rep in the business.

What rep does he have?

mconigol

What exactly is a jail sentence going to achieve? Jail should be for people who are/have been a danger to society.

That judge is a ****ing idiot.

gizmo555

Deleted User wrote: »

So, not once did anyone take a look to check if they were actually apples? Great job, customs!

They did take a look and IMO it was a great job by Customs.

The tax evasion was uncovered in October 2007 when a Dublin Port customs officers opened a container said to hold 18 tonnes of apples and two tonnes of garlic. Inside were 21 tonnes of garlic, but no apples.

Sindri

eth0 wrote: »

There is no fcuking need to go to China for fooking garlic. you can grow it here


Import duty should be 500%

Yeah, I actually grow it myself.

Bigcheeze

mconigol wrote: »

What exactly is a jail sentence going to achieve? Jail should be for people who are/have been a danger to society.

That judge is a ****ing idiot.

It achieves a deterrent against fraud, tax evasion and corruption. If you defraud the IRS in the US or Inland Revenue in the UK, you'll do time.

Too many people in this country think that tax evasion isn't really a crime and if you get caught all you have to days is pay back the money with interest.

Also how many of his legitimate competitors did he put out of business because they couldn't compete with his prices.

Gingernuts31

Something reaks here.

Dartz

PCPhoto wrote: »

The law is there for a reason !!

And that reason is to generate fines....

The law is an arse

woodoo

Do judges know what they are doing in this country. That is a scandalous sentence. 6 years for relabeling garlic. And a consecutive sentence too. You never hear of consecutive sentences for your average violent scumbag. If they go to jail at all its with a hefty reduction or concurrent sentence.

lividduck

Bigcheeze wrote: »

It achieves a deterrent against fraud, tax evasion and corruption. If you defraud the IRS in the US or Inland Revenue in the UK, you'll do time.

Too many people in this country think that tax evasion isn't really a crime and if you get caught all you have to days is pay back the money with interest.

Also how many of his legitimate competitors did he put out of business because they couldn't compete with his prices.

I think most people have a problem with the length of the sentence, not that he was convicted and sent to Jail. FFS Rambo Burke only got 6 months.
A sentence should both punish and deter but that sentence was ludicrus, its the same amount of time or more than people get for killing, Eamon Lillis etc

booboo88

To be honest I just dont see the point in putting him in prison, its only the tax payer who has to foot the bill for him being there, and yes, he's a scam artist, but hes going to pay it back is he not?
As a deterrent fine him, but don't bloody imprison him.

Nonoperational

The fact that it's garlic seems to have people thinking differently about it. It's tax evasion plain and simple. It's a tough sentence but the garlic is irrelevant.

saintsaltynuts

The Judge threw the Cookery book at him.

later12

gurramok wrote: »

Justify 5 years sentence for punching a man to death ...

But that's the point: nobody here is doing so. It's completely irrelevant to this case because it doesn't detract or add to this man's guilt, the harm he has committed, any mitigating or incriminating circumstances, and giving him a shorter prison sentence will not get violent criminals off the street: if there is one thing we have learned, it's that the Department of Justice take little to no account of overpopulation in the prisons.

Sunnyisland

IMO its about time so called respectable business people who commit fraud are given custodial sentences in this country,This man was involved in a huge tax scam in which millions of pounds was involved,They are just as much scumbags as the ones who we read about everyday.

booboo88

later12 wrote: »

But that's the point: nobody here is doing so. It's completely irrelevant to this case because it doesn't detract or add to this man's guilt, the harm he has committed, any mitigating or incriminating circumstances, and giving him a shorter prison sentence will not get violent criminals off the street: if there is one thing we have learned, it's that the Department of Justice take little to no account of overpopulation in the prisons.

It is kinda relevant as in, its fairly tough sentence, considering if he say killed someone, he would possibly be serving less time.

When in this country are we going to get it right, the sentence fitting the crime

Capt'n Midnight

Bigcheeze wrote: »

It achieves a deterrent against fraud, tax evasion and corruption. If you defraud the IRS in the US or Inland Revenue in the UK, you'll do time.

Too many people in this country think that tax evasion isn't really a crime and if you get caught all you have to days is pay back the money with interest.

If that were the case the happy days.

But it's not. There have been loads of tribunals, tax amnestys, and then the financial industry was deregulated despite a history of dodgy dealing by the likes of the people in the golden circle. Out of those who had the financial means and incentive to do so tried to evade Dirt ? We have a long history here of financial and regulatory laws following the UK. A not-insignificant proportion of the upper levels of our business community have indulged in sharp practice here, sharp in the sense that while not totally illegal here there was the certainty that if they did them across the boarder it would be prison time.

Had this level of prosecution been implimented at the start of the tribunals then we might be living in a much better country.

a nice little round up of the tribunals - I'm mentioning Goodman because of the scale of the tax fraud involved relative to the punishments. IIRC at one stage Goodman was responsible for something like 6% of our GDP.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2011/0326/1224293121760.html

THE BULLISH behaviour of [inset names here] this week was that of men who know they have nothing to fear. We now know that, on the whole, exposure is not a mortal wound. It is just a passing fever.
...
The beef tribunal, which reported in 1994, made a series of astonishing findings against the Goodman International group, owned and controlled by Larry Goodman. Among them were a massive tax fraud, the systematic misappropriation of beef going into EU intervention schemes and the abuse of State export credit guarantees in Goodman’s dealings with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. In the subsequent Dáil debate, Michael McDowell asked the rhetorical question: “Will any of these people hang their Armani jackets on the back of a cell door in Mountjoy?”

The answer, of course, was no: the only person to be prosecuted as a result of the beef tribunal was Susan O’Keeffe, the journalist who uncovered the scandal in the first place. Not only that but, in the long term, Larry Goodman suffered no real damage. He regained control of his companies and is still one of the largest beef processors in Europe. In 2005 it was revealed that the EU, which had been defrauded by his company, was paying him €500,000 a year under the Single Farm Payment scheme. The following year, after the US invasion, the new Iraq government paid him $72 million he was owed by Saddam.

Larry Goodman has gone from debts of 700 million to a current worth of about €745 million.

Sunnyisland

boo boo 88 wrote: »

To be honest I just don't see the point in putting him in prison, its only the tax payer who has to foot the bill for him being there, and yes, he's a scam artist, but hes going to pay it back is he not?
As a deterrent fine him, but don't bloody imprison him.

So if you have money and you can pay it back that makes it ok, Don't think so,
There has been to much of that going on in this country for years, Its good to see it being taken more serious by the judge and I would hope it doesn't stop there.

Seomra Mushie

blatantrereg wrote: »

It's easy to grow garlic in Ireland. I did it before myself. Sure the stuff starts to grow if you leave it in the cupboard too long.

Plus, homegrown garlic = yummykins :cool:

later12

Samba wrote: »

...I'm curious, how does one lobby to reduce the taxation rate of I don't know let's say....garlic. where does one start?

One of my friends has a company in the services industry, and when establishing she found that the lower rate of 13.5% vat was not applicable to her activities, but that she would have to charge 23%.

Did she ignore the determination and pay whatever rate she wanted to?

No. She rang Revenue who told her how to contact the Appeal Commissioners, how to apply and that if she was not happy with their conclusion, she could take her case to the Circuit court.

There is a well established process out there for people who are unhappy or feel aggrieved at apparently illogical revenue determinations.

If people choose to ignore that process, and pay whatever rate they wish to pay, and deliberately evade tax to the tune of €1.5 million over a long period of time then they should be aware that this will be taken seriously.

later12

booboo88 wrote: »

It is kinda relevant as in, its fairly tough sentence, considering if he say killed someone, he would possibly be serving less time

Just because someone else gets 5 years for manslaughter doesn't mean that this sentence is too tough.
It isn't just the seriousness of the crime that is taken into account, but any mitigating circumstances like the accused acting in a premeditated way over a long period of time, which obviously doesn't apply in cases of manslaughter.

In any case, if a custodial sentence is felt to be too light elsewhere, that point can be argued in application to the court on its own merits. This case will not affect it one dot.

Cicero

We're paying nearly 100k a year, to house a man who evaded paying a 1.5 mil tax bill...and we are preventing him from paying off any more of that tax bill by keeping him in jail....that doesn't make sense at all...a seriously wrong decision by the courts IMO ...I'm not for this scape - goating... let's teach all tax evaders a lesson ...sentencing crap....stick with appropriate sentences or change the law....but 6 years is ludicrous for this particular case...

lividduck

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-jailed-for-beating-taxi-driver-with-cerebral-palsy-3045798.html

While this guy got 6 years a Zimbabwian scumbag with 34 previous convictions, who beat up a taxi driver with cerebal palsy and then stole his taxi got.....

wait for it....



Two and a half years!
There is no justice in this country.

ressem

later12 wrote: »

One of my friends has a company in the services industry, and when establishing she found that the lower rate of 13.5% vat was not applicable to her activities, but that she would have to charge 23%.

Did she ignore the determination and pay whatever rate she wanted to?

No. She rang Revenue who told her how to contact the Appeal Commissioners, how to apply and that if she was not happy with their conclusion, she could take her case to the Circuit court.

There is a well established process out there for people who are unhappy or feel aggrieved at apparently illogical revenue determinations.

If people choose to ignore that process, and pay whatever rate they wish to pay, and deliberately evade tax to the tune of €1.5 million over a long period of time then they should be aware that this will be taken seriously.

This rate is set by EU taric rules.
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/measures.jsp?Lang=en&SimDate=20120310&Area=CN&Taric=0703200000&LangDescr=en

And it's for protectionist reasons, not 'inexplicable' as the judge put it...

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-life/ka1/volume2/qlk1-1999-00498.htm

The production of garlic (Allium sativum L.) in Europe is concentrated in the Mediterranean countries. The price of European garlic is high, especially in comparison with Chinese garlic. This price difference could severely threaten the European garlic growers if there was a free market in Europe for garlic. However, to protect the European garlic growers the European Commission issued in 1993 a regulation that only 12000 tons of Chinese garlic can be imported annually.

So the revenue and courts here can do little about it.
He should not have been deceiving customs and revenue. So what method does he have to get a regulation changed that is presumably the work of some lobby group and an EU parlimentarian version of Micheal Lowry?

Samba

later12 wrote: »

One of my friends has a company in the services industry, and when establishing she found that the lower rate of 13.5% vat was not applicable to her activities, but that she would have to charge 23%.

Did she ignore the determination and pay whatever rate she wanted to?

No. She rang Revenue who told her how to contact the Appeal Commissioners, how to apply and that if she was not happy with their conclusion, she could take her case to the Circuit court.

There is a well established process out there for people who are unhappy or feel aggrieved at apparently illogical revenue determinations.

If people choose to ignore that process, and pay whatever rate they wish to pay, and deliberately evade tax to the tune of €1.5 million over a long period of time then they should be aware that this will be taken seriously.

God of course not! I'm 100% in agreement with you, the man broke the law and deserves to suffer the consequences.

I was was merely trying to establish if perhaps there were mitigating circumstances that drove him to defraud the state, which was why I was curious if procedures were in place for contesting tax rates.

I'd be interested to know if he went through the established process.

At a glance it clearly looks like a case of him giving the State the two fingers.

Edit didn't see Reseem's post before submitting, that's interesting, so there's a due process but it's ultimately rendered void due to overriding EU law?

old_aussie

Only in Ireland. :rolleyes:

mikom

The real irony is that Brian Lenihan was probably chewing on one of Paul Begleys garlic cloves when deciding to prop up the banks.

After a visit by Lenihan to David McWilliams's house, McWilliams publicly claimed that Lenihan had eaten large doses of raw garlic during the visit, and that Lenihan had said he had developed the habit since becoming Minister for Finance. An unnamed source described in the Irish Examiner as "close to Mr Lenihan" subsequently said:

It's true he does like eating garlic, but he doesn't chew it like gum – it's good for the blood, apparently.

Then Minister of State Pat Carey said on the radio at the time that Lenihan "constantly chew[ed] garlic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Lenihan,_Jnr

Now that's a real crime.

Sunnyisland

old aussie wrote: »

Only in Ireland. :rolleyes:

Whats only in Ireland

The fact that very very few if any at all successful businessman get convicted and jailed in this country when it comes to white collar crime, The crimes of the rich & powerfull should be investigated, prosecuted and punished with equal vigour as any other crime.

Tayla

mconigol wrote: »

What exactly is a jail sentence going to achieve? Jail should be for people who are/have been a danger to society.

That judge is a ****ing idiot.

Completely agree, actual dangerous criminals get extremely short sentences, the state has an obligation to keep its citizens safe.

woodoo wrote: »

Do judges know what they are doing in this country. That is a scandalous sentence. 6 years for relabeling garlic. And a consecutive sentence too. You never hear of consecutive sentences for your average violent scumbag. If they go to jail at all its with a hefty reduction or concurrent sentence.

The same judge gave a paedophile who abused his granddaughter over 40 times 3 one year sentences to run concurrently. It's just shocking.

later12 wrote: »

But that's the point: nobody here is doing so. It's completely irrelevant to this case because it doesn't detract or add to this man's guilt, the harm he has committed, any mitigating or incriminating circumstances, and giving him a shorter prison sentence will not get violent criminals off the street: if there is one thing we have learned, it's that the Department of Justice take little to no account of overpopulation in the prisons.

I think it's completely relevant, I don't trust this judge to do his job properly, his record for sentencing is scandalous.

mikemac1

Jail the bankers screamed multiple threads on boards for the least few years

And a tax cheat gets jailed and now there are calls that the judge was too harsh?
And that jail is only for people who are a danger to others?

And another few posts that he should not be in jail but instead should be trading to pay off the debt.
Yet property developers asked for salaries to run their companies and portfolios now taken over by NAMA and there was posts they should be on minimum welfare and homeless until the losses were recovered

Well a lot of you changed your tune
The judge jailed a criminal, but it seems he was too harsh on the poor lamb

later12

ressem wrote: »

SSo what method does he have to get a regulation changed that is presumably the work of some lobby group and an EU parlimentarian version of Micheal Lowry?

I can somewhat understand the basis for such protectionism. Agricultural workers tend not to be the most flexible labour market participants and therefore any damage to their industry is likely to be met with a need for support from the state - if not in terms of protectionism, then in terms of direct financial transfers.

As a quasi sovereign economy, Europe is perfectly entitled to make such determinations in its own long term interests.

Since the appeal against decisions taken by the customs authorities only relate to the application of customs legislation, and legislation itself cannot be challenged in a case like this, this does indeed close off the possibility of an appeal via Revenue and subsequently the courts service.

However the individual in question is perfectly entitled to raise the issue with his MEP or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the European Commission Representation in Ireland,similar to how anyone would ever appeal against Irish legislation in Ireland.