Bank manager jailed for €450k theft over 19 years

dd972

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/bank-manager-jailed-for-450k-theft-over-19-years-29207115.html

a bit harsh on this poor fellow, he's sounds like boardroom material for his profession.

smash

dd972 wrote: »

a bit harsh on this poor fellow, he's sounds like boardroom material for his profession.

You read the article right?

A bank manager has been jailed for four years after he stole nearly €450,000 from customers to pay off a €3m debt he had run up from failed property investments.

Lost his pension also

That should keep AH happy

EDDIE WATERS

So all he got was 4 years not 19

lkionm

squod

Weren't Judges moaning about something or other during the week?

Judge Nolan accepted that for a man such as Mitchell, prison would be difficult but said he must impose a somewhat harsh term "for general deterrence and punishment

This is unreasonable. Multiple counts of theft, a career criminal, huge amounts of cash, exploiting a trusted position etc. What the actual fuhk is going on in our courts??

maithanfear

seems fair enough. its not like he walked into the bank with a shotgun

squod

maithanfear wrote: »

seems fair enough. its not like he walked into the bank with a shotgun

He didn't have to! He was robbing the place from inside.

Muckie

Thing is he won't do 4 years, plus his really, really sorry now.

maithanfear

squod wrote: »

He didn't have to! He was robbing the place from inside.

Would of it made a difference if he had stolen 4,000 euro as opposed to 400,000? Nobody was hurt here.

Anyone

maithanfear wrote: »

Would of it made a difference if he had stolen 4,000 euro as opposed to 400,000? Nobody was hurt here.

So theft is ok as long as someone doednt get hurt? 4 years seems about right imo. They should attempt to recover the money he stole also.

Peetrik

I love how this bank manager keeps his own money in the credit union. Speaks volumes

HondaSami

Anyone wrote: »

So theft is ok as long as someone doednt get hurt? 4 years seems about right imo. They should attempt to recover the money he stole also.

The bank compensated the people involved, He has given his pension to the bank. I'm sure the money is long gone and not recoverable.
He is doing time for his sins, what more can he do?

Anyone

HondaSami wrote: »

The bank compensated the people involved, He has given his pension to the bank. I'm sure the money is long gone and not recoverable.
He is doing time for his sins, what more can he do?

Missed the amount that was in the pension. So yeah, seems fair what he got.

My point was that just because people don't get physically hurt, shouldn't mean a light sentence.

maithanfear

Anyone wrote: »

Missed the amount that was in the pension. So yeah, seems fair what he got.

My point was that just because people don't get physically hurt, shouldn't mean a light sentence.

then why is armed robbery such a serious offence even if a robber only escapes with 50 euro?

Anyone

maithanfear wrote: »

then why is armed robbery such a serious offence even if a robber only escapes with 50 euro?

Because if you are armed there is an intent to injure/kill others.

Anyway, thats not my point. I disagree with the whole attitude in this country to white collar crime "ahh sure nobody was hurt".

P. Breathnach

maithanfear wrote: »

then why is armed robbery such a serious offence even if a robber only escapes with 50 euro?

I'd be far more distressed by being threatened with a weapon than I would if I had an amount of money taken from me.

maithanfear

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd be far more distressed by being threatened with a weapon than I would if I had an amount of money taken from me.

I would feel different, especially if we're talking 400 k.

Amirani

maithanfear wrote: »

then why is armed robbery such a serious offence even if a robber only escapes with 50 euro?

Do you really have to ask that? There's a word in your question that wasn't involved in the bank manager's case that completely changes things. Can you guess which one it is?

Amirani

maithanfear wrote: »

I would feel different, especially if we're talking 400 k.

Nobody had that amount of money taken from them. Anybody who did have any money taken from them was refunded. The only party to lose out in this case is the bank.

dd972

smash wrote: »

You read the article right?

A bank manager has been jailed for four years after he stole nearly €450,000 from customers to pay off a €3m debt he had run up from failed property investments.

Think you might have had a sarcasm bypass operation bruv

Death and Taxes

Anyone wrote: »

Missed the amount that was in the pension. So yeah, seems fair what he got.

My point was that just because people don't get physically hurt, shouldn't mean a light sentence.

Actually it should, prison should be , by and large, reserved for violent offenders.

KyussBishop

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Actually it should, prison should be , by and large, reserved for violent offenders.

Absolutely not; fraud like this, should be treated far more harshly than it is currently, and I'd have liked to see this guy get a much longer sentence than he did.

Fraud is not a victimless crime, and it has played a contributory part in our current economic crisis, which is having hugely damaging effects on our society right now; one case of fraud like this, can be absorbed easily enough, but if fraud becomes systemic as it had/has in some financial institutions both here and throughout the world, it can cause enormous damage to entire economies (which, as we are experiencing now, can be significantly harmful to people and their finances, in those economies).

Due to the insidious deceptive nature of fraud, the means by which it becomes institutionalized/normalized over time by the "shure nobody got harmed" flawed line of thinking (and how difficult it may be to detect properly), the economic damage it can cause, and the undue/unearned economic (and thus political) power it can grant these criminals, it must be treated far more severely and harshly than a guy robbing a bank teller with a shotgun, because of how fraud often leads to vastly higher scaled monetary/societal damages.


Due to the attitudes towards fraud in this country (tax fraud in particular), and the light-touch approach of government to regulation (leaving many activities that should be fraudulent, legal), it's my impression that fraud and a lax attitude to ethics in business/finance, is quite widespread in this country.

It is imperative that this is cracked down on, and people given extremely harsh jail terms as a deterrence, in order to change societal attitudes on this issue, and provide appropriate punishment.

Leaving this kind of stuff unpunished, or not treated severely enough, creates a two-tier justice system, where those who gain riches through fraud are immune or less-affected by the law (and gain greater legal power through financial means), than everyone else in society; because of this, and the political power this can grant them (through significant economic means), it is essential to crack down on.

Amirani

Prison is completely pointless in a case like this and would serve no purpose. Prison should only be used to protect the general public from violent offenders.

Why not have him make some positive contribution to society to the value of 450k+? 4 years of community service would be better for everyone than 4 years of prison.

squod

It's crazy and somewhat scary that this lad only got a few years. In the grand scheme of things career criminals could easily balance out a few years for the risk if the risk was worth taking.

In my mind the judge was essentially condoning 19 years of crime. That's what the lad probably expected, that was the risk he chose to take.

KyussBishop

NiallSparky wrote: »

Prison is completely pointless in a case like this and would serve no purpose. Prison should only be used to protect the general public from violent offenders.

Why not have him make some positive contribution to society to the value of 450k+? 4 years of community service would be better for everyone than 4 years of prison.

Prison is the method by which everyone else is punished, including people not paying their TV License and such; due to the ease with which gains from fraud can be hidden, a simple fine and community service is not enough.

Prison is not just about protecting the public from physical violence, it is there to restrict peoples liberty as punishment; it is largely a different discussion too, as in almost any other thread, if someone went to prison for breaking the law (for whatever reason), the general response would be "the law's the law".

Amirani

KyussBishop wrote: »

Prison is the method by which everyone else is punished, including people not paying their TV License and such; due to the ease with which gains from fraud can be hidden, a simple fine and community service is not enough.

Prison is not just about protecting the public from physical violence, it is there to restrict peoples liberty as punishment; it is largely a different discussion too, as in almost any other thread, if someone went to prison for breaking the law (for whatever reason), the general response would be "the law's the law".

It probably is more suited to a different thread. I don't believe restricting liberty is a good punishment except when the offender is dangerous, it's not productive whatsoever.

I do agree that there should be tough sentences for fraud though, just not prison terms.

KyussBishop

NiallSparky wrote: »

It probably is more suited to a different thread. I don't believe restricting liberty is a good punishment except when the offender is dangerous, it's not productive whatsoever.

I do agree that there should be tough sentences for fraud though, just not prison terms.

Ya agreed; while off topic, I find interesting some alternatives such as this, as a replacement for prisons:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

JJJJNR

Prob go to cloverhill and then an open prison, no more bills for this guy, he'll be back on the golf course in 12 months.

nlgbbbblth

maithanfear wrote: »

then why is armed robbery such a serious offence even if a robber only escapes with 50 euro?

The key is in the word "armed".

Have you ever been in situation where somebody has a gun pointed at you and says "give me the f*cking money. NOW!"?

It's not pleasant.

Violent crime has a serious effect on the victims. Embezzlement much less so.

Chuck Stone

bluewolf wrote: »

Lost his pension also

That should keep AH happy

Him and his ilk should be destitute.

dotsman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Him and his ilk should be destitute.

From the sounds of things, he is. He's lost his home, family, job & pension. Given his age, upon leaving prison, he will spend the rest of his life living off social, with no hope of ever improving his situation.

squod

dotsman wrote: »

From the sounds of things, he is. He's lost his home, family, job & pension. Given his age, upon leaving prison, he will spend the rest of his life living off social, with no hope of ever improving his situation.

Presume that it's his linkdin account that's still active. 38 years banking, €3m in property investments and.....

None of the cash was recovered but ACC bank fully reimbursed Mr Ryan and the Flanagans.

None of the cash recovered?

dotsman

squod wrote: »

Presume that it's his linkdin account that's still active. 38 years banking, €3m in property investments and.....



None of the cash recovered?

The €3m was a failure - it's down that black hole the stolen money went.

I can only go on what was written in the article, but is sounds like his life is pretty much over now. I don't see what prison is going to do except waste a $hitload of taxpayers money.

Odysseus

squod wrote: »

Presume that it's his linkdin account that's still active. 38 years banking, €3m in property investments and.....



None of the cash recovered?

Correct me if I'm wrong but as the bank has been reinbursed there is no need for the cash to be recovered.

The bank has paid those who lost monies; and he has reinbursed the bank by surrending his pension which covers more than the bankhas paid out.

Does this not mean the the balance sheet is balanced?

humbert

Odysseus wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but as the bank has been reinbursed there is no need for the cash to be recovered.

The bank has paid those who lost monies; and he has reinbursed the bank by surrending his pension which covers more than the bankhas paid out.

Does this not mean the the balance sheet is balanced?

Think it said in the article that his pension is worth €600k.

Odysseus

humbert wrote: »

Think it said in the article that his pension is worth €600k.

That is my understanding and he stole 450k.

johnnydeep

dotsman wrote: »

The €3m was a failure - it's down that black hole the stolen money went.

I can only go on what was written in the article, but is sounds like his life is pretty much over now. I don't see what prison is going to do except waste a $hitload of taxpayers money.

its a deterent to stop others. why do some people believe that only working class people should get jail sentences

dotsman

johnnydeep wrote: »

its a deterent to stop others. why do some people believe that only working class people should get jail sentences

How do we know that this guy wasn't working class? Who said anything about working class anyway? For me, prison should be for violent offenders and repeat/habitual offenders, not a first offence for a financial crime where the victims were fully compensated.

As for a deterrent - what can be more of a deterrent than losing your family, home, job (knowing you'll never have any of those things again)?

All his victims were repaid. The only person to lose out here was this guy, and he lost out big time. That's a pretty big deterrent in my books.

johnnydeep

dotsman wrote: »

How do we know that this guy wasn't working class? Who said anything about working class anyway? For me, prison should be for violent offenders and repeat/habitual offenders, not a first offence for a financial crime where the victims were fully compensated.

As for a deterrent - what can be more of a deterrent than losing your family, home, job (knowing you'll never have any of those things again)?

All his victims were repaid. The only person to lose out here was this guy, and he lost out big time. That's a pretty big deterrent in my books.

prison at a guess

dotsman

johnnydeep wrote: »

prison at a guess

As is being slowly boiled alive in a large pot, castrated with a rusty blade, and being hung drawn and quartered, but I think most intelligent people would consider them slightly over-the-top.

Do you honestly believe we should spend €260,000 on keeping him in prison for the next 4 years? Do you honestly think that a person who doesn't physically hurt anyone, gives every single thing they own, and ever will own, to fully compensate the victims and it is their first offence, should be sent away for 4 years?

squod

Odysseus wrote: »

Does this not mean the the balance sheet is balanced?

In the same boat as you. Can't make out much of what went on.

Amirani

johnnydeep wrote: »

prison at a guess

If you think prison is a bigger deterrent than losing your family, home and job then you must live a fairly lonely life.

Odysseus

squod wrote: »

In the same boat as you. Can't make out much of what went on.

But you want him to be punished further is that correct. From what I can see just in what is here I am happy with his case. His life is destoried, I can't see how justice is served by trying to punish him more.

squod

Odysseus wrote: »

But you want him to be punished further is that correct. From what I can see just in what is here I am happy with his case. His life is destoried, I can't see how justice is served by trying to punish him more.

Many criminals end up destroying their own lives?

My POV;

Judge Nolan accepted that for a man such as Mitchell, prison would be difficult but said he must impose a somewhat harsh term "for general deterrence and punishment

This is unreasonable. Multiple counts of theft, a career criminal, huge amounts of cash, exploiting a trusted position etc. What the actual fuhk is going on in our courts??

Chuck Stone

NiallSparky wrote: »

If you think prison is a bigger deterrent than losing your family, home and job then you must live a fairly lonely life.

Very few of the people who played a part in the economic catastrophe will end up destitute (which they absolutely should). The system is set up in such a way that the vast majority of people involved in such economic conflagrations walk away from the ashes with luxury homes, gilt-edged pensions and trust funds that will ensure they live out their lives in luxury.

In the absence of a retributive model where these people can be pursued for everything they have a custodial sentence seems like the only way of deterring such behaviour.

KyussBishop

dotsman wrote: »

How do we know that this guy wasn't working class? Who said anything about working class anyway? For me, prison should be for violent offenders and repeat/habitual offenders, not a first offence for a financial crime where the victims were fully compensated.

As for a deterrent - what can be more of a deterrent than losing your family, home, job (knowing you'll never have any of those things again)?

All his victims were repaid. The only person to lose out here was this guy, and he lost out big time. That's a pretty big deterrent in my books.

Prison, on top of all that, is a bigger deterrent.

You don't treat one class of criminals, differently from the rest; prison is not only about locking away violent offenders, it is about removing peoples freedom/liberty for their crimes.

It's a simple case of equal application of the law, of not having a two-tier justice system. If people think prison should be reformed, so that non-violent offenders should not be put in prisons with violent offenders, that's grand (it is a different discussion though), but their freedom/liberty must be removed as punishment (even if only in a limited way, such as the article I posted earlier of the Norway prison camp), otherwise we do not have nearly enough of a deterrent.

dotsman wrote: »

As is being slowly boiled alive in a large pot, castrated with a rusty blade, and being hung drawn and quartered, but I think most intelligent people would consider them slightly over-the-top.

Do you honestly believe we should spend €260,000 on keeping him in prison for the next 4 years? Do you honestly think that a person who doesn't physically hurt anyone, gives every single thing they own, and ever will own, to fully compensate the victims and it is their first offence, should be sent away for 4 years?

Except nobody is advocating torture. If imprisoning him serves as a deterrent (for a society with, in my view, a lax attitude to ethics/fraud when it comes to finance/business), then yes, he should be sent away for much longer than 4 years, and everyone like him given the same treatment.

Financial crimes, on a wide scale, can damage entire economies and societies much more than a guy with a shotgun, holding up a bank; there are known examples of fraud in our financial system, which contributed to the current crisis, and which have gone unpunished; that is an extremely dangerous message to give out, letting financial crimes go unpunished, as it perpetuates a lax attitude to the law and crime in finance overall, which may well lead us into further economic crisis in the future.

KyussBishop

Odysseus wrote: »

But you want him to be punished further is that correct. From what I can see just in what is here I am happy with his case. His life is destoried, I can't see how justice is served by trying to punish him more.

He screwed up his own life, which was built partially upon the profits of his fraud; that's on him, and is not something the court has to consider.

Considering the amount of damage unchecked fraud can do to society and entire economies, it needs a very harsh deterrent, and considering the ease with which fraudulently obtained finances can be concealed in offshore banking, the deterrent these guys need to face is loss of their personal liberty/freedoms, by being put in prison.

This does not have to mean the kind of prison populated with violent offenders, that leads to personal harm or recidivism and such, but his liberty must be removed as punishment (just like it would be for anyone else who commits a crime), and if there are no prisons in Ireland which have a more appropriate setting for these types of non-violent criminals (such as the one I linked earlier from Norway), then that is a reason for reform of the prison system, not for having a two-tier justice system where fraud is treated lightly.

JustAThought

NiallSparky wrote: »

Prison is completely pointless in a case like this and would serve no purpose. Prison should only be used to protect the general public from violent offenders..

Disagree totally . & the more people who are let off in our cushy jail " system" the more are encouraged to assault, steal, break into people's homes & leave them living in fear etc. I doubt that the 78 year old man this person stole from & cheated wanted to spend his late 70's in & out of solicitors offices & garda stations, or in banks trying to figure out where his money had gone, or in busses & cars up & down from Kilrush in Clare being involved in witness & bank audits, & bank meetings fir his " missing" " investment " / theft by bank manager. I doubt he welcomed dealing with internal investigators & the stress of it all, giving statements & testifying -not to mention his lifes savings being missing - stolen- and not knowing until years after if anything could be done to recover it, or if like so many other crimes it would simply be listed as " not recovered".

Your post shows a shocking disregard for the victims of this crime.

johnnydeep

NiallSparky wrote: »

If you think prison is a bigger deterrent than losing your family, home and job then you must live a fairly lonely life.

see for me to believe that he lost his family, home and job, I would have to take the word of a convicted robber. who stole enough money to cover life saving operations, feed starving families. etc.