Did the Bankers break the Law?

deadwood

You can't discuss housing, finance or justice matters without somebody pitching in with "Jail the Bankers".

Simple question: Did the Bankers break any laws?

(Note to mods, i'm not a banker looking for a loophole!)

deadwood

That's what I thought.

paky

im assuming a banker who lent 80 million euro from a bank (one of which he was in charge of) to himself, without him following the procedures in securing that loan, constituted a degree of fraud.

if the bankers didn't break any laws, they certainly were negligent in their lending.

johnfás

Lending too much money in a poorly regulated market to one sector (construction) isn't against the law. That is what collapsed the economy. Whether, during that period, the banks also engaged in illegal activity is, I understand from the news, currently under investigation by the Gardaí and the ODCE.

AwayWithFaries

I think a lot of the problem was the lack of laws for them to break, hence the lack of prosecutions.

Or else they broke a sh*t load of laws but paid off all the right people. Who knows.

paky

johnfás wrote: »

Lending too much money in a poorly regulated market to one sector (construction) isn't against the law.

the bankers must of forceen that the property bubble would of burst but they continued lending. they had a duty of care in which they breached which makes them liable

wexie

What about the transfers between PTSB and Irish Life (IIRC) and the Anglo share transactions?

I'm sure a lot of the things we saw could be covered by 'unethical but not illegal' but I've a hard time that transactions such as those don't constitute some form of fraud.

Maybe someone can come along and explain? I'm pretty curious to be honest.

Fighting Irish

We borrowed too much and they lent to much

deadwood

Just to keep this on topic, ethics, morals, procedures etc., aside, did anyone break the law?

(Now, if the banker wasn't on his oath and moored his reposessed boat with a flashing green light in the fast bus lane, we'd know what to do with him, because the law there is clear as mustard.)

Hogzy

deadwood wrote: »

Just to keep this on topic, ethics, morals, procedures etc., aside, did anyone break the law?

(Now, if the banker wasn't on his oath and moored his reposessed boat with a flashing green light in the fast bus lane, we'd know what to do with him, because the law there is clear as mustard.)

Presumably yes they did. But its very hard to prove it. This is probably a better question for the accounting forum because it all concerns forensic accounting.
If numbers have been forged then yes they did break the law. It would seem likely that numbers have been forged but its proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is the hard part.
Transferring property to you another person for the sole reason of avoiding creditors is agains the law. Again proving that they intended to avoid creditors is the hard part. Its not as black and white as saying they did or did not break the law unfortunately.

deadwood

Hogzy wrote: »

Presumably yes they did. But its very hard to prove it. This is probably a better question for the accounting forum because it all concerns forensic accounting.
If numbers have been forged then yes they did break the law. It would seem likely that numbers have been forged but its proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is the hard part.
Transferring property to you another person for the sole reason of avoiding creditors is agains the law. Again proving that they intended to avoid creditors is the hard part. Its not as black and white as saying they did or did not break the law unfortunately.

Presumably...If...likely.

Not criticising your post, but this is as far as we get.

Politicians, journalists and commentators are all very quick to jump on the band wagon, but nobody will pin them down and ask what law these people broke.

Tax avoidance -v- tax evasion is thrown out there.

As for not being black and white, I understand that. Me go back to um cave. Me no play grown up no more. Me sorry.

Hogzy

deadwood wrote: »

Presumably...If...likely.

Not criticising your post, but this is as far as we get.

Politicians, journalists and commentators are all very quick to jump on the band wagon, but nobody will pin them down and ask what law these people broke.

Tax avoidance -v- tax evasion is thrown out there.

As for not being black and white, I understand that. Me go back to um cave. Me no play grown up no more. Me sorry.

Well if the previous referendum on Oireachtas Investigation had passed then there would probably be a lot more accountability. Id wasnt voted by the irish people (and rightly so) because of how it was worded. It almost gave the Oireachtas unlimited power to investigate who they wanted. Thats all well and true for the bankers but that constitutional amendment will be there forever.
If the government put have the effort into the wording of that constitutional amendment than they did into the general election then i GUARANTEE you there would be alot more accountability today.

Mind you an Oireachtas Investigation cannot sentence someone to prison find someone guilty of a crime so whats the point i suppose.

deadwood

we couldn't act retrospectively though, could we?

Hogzy

deadwood wrote: »

we couldn't act retrospectively though, could we?

The constitution specifically prevents criminal legislation acting retrospectively. And rightly so. Imagine it was made illegal to post on boards.ie tomorrow, and that could be used retrospectively to prosecute us. It clearly wouldnt work. You cant prosecute someone for something they did when it was legal at the time of doing it.

deadwood

Hogzy wrote: »

The constitution specifically prevents criminal legislation acting retrospectively. And rightly so. Imagine it was made illegal to post on boards.ie tomorrow, and that could be used retrospectively to prosecute us. It clearly wouldnt work. You cant prosecute someone for something they did when it was legal at the time of doing it.

Sorry, I meant that as more of a statement than a question.

Thanks for replying.

I just find it interesting that people who get air time and column space throw out "jail the bankers" and make vague refernces to fraud etc., without any refernce to laws broken. Just thought some legal eaglets might have an opinion.

It seems they onl have to wrestle with their conscience now.

Victor

There various Quinn / IBRC cases seem to suggest that there is at least the formal accusation by some of the parties of illegality by some of the parties.

With the pure over lending, it wouldn't be illegal until it get to the point where the directors knew or ought to have known that they were consistently trading at a loss or were insolvent.

Hogzy wrote: »

If numbers have been forged then yes they did break the law.

The suggestion is that there were contracts that were signed long after the loans were advanced. These may have been the first such contracts for those loans or it may have been fraudulent.

deadwood wrote: »

we couldn't act retrospectively though, could we?

Only if we changed the constitution, which would have EU and judges having qualms.

Hogzy

Victor wrote: »

Only if we changed the constitution, which would have EU and judges having qualms.

Judges wouldnt have a say. It would have to be put to referendum. It never will though. Retrospective criminal legislation completely goes against the basics of Criminal law.

tiktock7aclock

Hogzy wrote: »

The constitution specifically prevents criminal legislation acting retrospectively. And rightly so. Imagine it was made illegal to post on boards.ie tomorrow, and that could be used retrospectively to prosecute us. It clearly wouldnt work. You cant prosecute someone for something they did when it was legal at the time of doing it.

They can do this in the UK if Parliment passed legislation to retroactively prosecute those involved. Their unwritten Constitution is not limited like say, the American Constitution.

Hogzy

tiktock7aclock wrote: »

They can do this in the UK if Parliment passed legislation to retroactively prosecute those involved. Their unwritten Constitution is not limited like say, the American Constitution.

Its against Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights but the UK's Parliamentary Sovereignty is deemed to be superior to the ECHR. In my opinion it would never be done. The only time it has been done to date is to prosecute Nazi's for war crimes. That in itself shows how morally wrong an act has to be before you can retrospectively prosecute it.

Carawaystick

Surely giving loans and colluding with people to manipulate the share price of a public company is illegal?
Although given what the McCanns did in the DCC case, I'm not so sure how illegal insider trading is here.

not publishing true and proper accounts must be wrong

Failing to keep proper accounts/records of trading must be a misdemeanour or surely at worst unlawful behaviour ( where worst means the country can't be so bad there are no laws against this kind of thing; at best it'd mean it's definitely criminal)
A friend of mine couldn't get social welfare to pay for mortgage interest cos the (pillar) bank who loaned him the money had no copy of the mortgage agreement, only a photocopy of the first and last page

Bank directors making false statements re. the solvency of their banks

Bank directors overcharging customers

Bank directors complicit in wide scale tax evasion

benway

wexie wrote: »

the Anglo share transactions?

This is the one, I think. I'm not a corporate specialist, but surely it's insider trading, as defined in Part V of the Companies Act 1990, for selected individuals to take the bank's money and buy its shares, so as to manipulate the share price?