Anglo Tapes

jmayo

Sand wrote: »

No, its true. The FG and Labour manifestos were just essentially "Oh god, please, please, please elect us - we'll give you whatever you want." It allowed Fianna Fail to run as stern defenders of the public purse despite out of control spending over the previous 5 years. That's how insane their manifestos were.

Its why I get irritated everytime people say "Oh why didn't the Irish people elect the rational, stern, and soundminded politicians of the alternative party". What alternative?

If you want to see why the other major parties started promising so much then take a look at the Irish electorate in 2006/2007.
ahern had as many questions to answer as john gillighan as to how he got his money.
Yet there was no CAB breaking down his door.

When Kenny and Gilmore started pushing ahern guess what happened ?
Their poll rating started dropping.
WTF does that say about the Irish electorate.

ahern had presided over more dodgy behavour, more wastage of public funds, more fraud, more corruption within his party and government than any toaiseach to date and yet what happened ?
He was fooking re elected.
Our public spending had ramped up, our health service was a disaster, we debacles like PPARS, national stadium, DDDA, etc and yet they were all ignored.

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Sorry about this but surely no one in official office bankers, politicians etc is permitted to act in a reckless manner, there must be a method where they can be removed from office/prosecuted.

See how hard it was to remove a paedophile judge.
BTW I believe he left with full pension and most likely a lump sum.
And yes I know he was never found guilty, but there is no denying his PC had child pornography on it.
Thus I label him a paedophile.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's been a Garda investigation since 2009, but it's a fraud investigation against a bank with a balance sheet the size of a country, so four years is hardly bizarre.

And if we come out of it with no further prosecutions, that may not be anything political, I'm afraid. There may just be a lack of charges that will stick.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I already mentioned this a few pages back.
Why were no external resources, as also mentioned by SpaceTime, brought in to help in any investigations.
You even say is yourself, the Garda are a small organisation and they didn't accpet the miniisters offer of more officers since it takes so long to get up to speed.

And as I said before having the CB/IFSRA/Dept of finance investigate any of the issues in our banks is like having the taliban help investigate the 911 attacks.
It is a fooking joke.

The one thing all these tapes show is that we are a bunch of eejits incapable of running anything.
This is really hurting what is left of our reputation and the little bit this government has tried to rebuild after the drunken buffoon had pi**ed it all away.

It is now incumbent on the current government and it prosecutory arms to be seen to be acting decisively and hard.
Due process needs a good kick up the ar** at this stage. :mad:

EDIT as for your point about fraud investigations being long running.
How long it take for bernie madoff to be tried and sentenced?
Then look to Ireland and tell us if breifne o'brien has been tried yet even though his ponzi scheme first came to light about 5 years ago.
Then there is Custom House Capital which I suppose will come to trial in about 2020. :rolleyes:

Rightwing

It will be very hard to pass thr ESM recapitalizing banks retrospectively after this. The Germans are livid.

Zubeneschamali

K-9 wrote: »

FG in 02 under Noonan was the last sustainable big party alternative

Yes, and the electorate handed FG their worst beating ever in 2002 for talking a bit of sense. No way was Enda going to make that mistake in 2007.

AlekSmart

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and the electorate handed FG their worst beating ever in 2002 for talking a bit of sense. No way was Enda going to make that mistake in 2007.

There is NO way of escaping the very real fact that in their corporate prime,these "Lads" were Gods among Bankers....their dominant leadership of Anglo-Irish Bank was the envy of their peers....

Exactly the same set of parameters governed our Political scene (and may well still govern it),with all of the big names repeatedly coming back to us for yet another Poll-Topping result.

Until we,as a culture,accept our own compliance in all of this,I really can't see much hope for an Éire nua rising from the ashes.

Perhaps it's worth drawing upon the de-Nazification process which Germany went through post WW2,a very painful,socially severe process,but one which most certainly has left them well suited to wag-a-finger in this case ?

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote:

EDIT as for your point about fraud investigations being long running.
How long it take for bernie madoff to be tried and sentenced?
Then look to Ireland and tell us if breifne o'brien has been tried yet even though his ponzi scheme first came to light about 5 years ago.
Then there is Custom House Capital which I suppose will come to trial in about 2020.

Actually, Madoff had been the subject of a series of investigations starting in 1992. They only finally collared him in 2008, when his sons went to the authorities and stated that their father had confessed to them that his scheme was a swindle. Madoff admitted it, and pleaded guilty.

So we're starting from the other end there. As to the investigation into unravelling who lost what, that's still ongoing, even though the Madoff scheme was both smaller and less complex than Anglo, and very much simpler in the sense that it was just a scam, whereas Anglo was a genuine merchant bank whose executives, during the collapse of the bank, may have done or attempted to do things that may, or may not, have tipped over from desperation into fraud.

In Madoff's case there was a swindle, a deliberate swindle, and Madoff knew it, had created it himself that way. In the case of Anglo, much revolves around what the Anglo executives knew, what the Regulator and the DoF knew, what it was possible to know, what projections of the immediate future of the bank would have been reasonable, and what would not, etc etc.

If Anglo's executives genuinely believed they had a fighting chance to keep the bank alive - and there's a more recently exposed Drumm-Bowe conversation where it's explicit that Drumm, at least, thought it could be done - then the whole idea of fraud really drops out of the picture, unless the bank actually lied to the Central Bank about the details of their financial position. If they didn't do that, and didn't themselves know at the time what became clear later on - which in any business is perfectly normal - then there can't be a fraud. Instead, you have two sides both operating in a murk of uncertainty, different narratives possible but optional, the day perhaps going to whoever makes their pitch most forcefully - which, so far, seems to have been Anglo.

So that's going to be a case of "what did they know" vs "what could they have known" vs "what should they have known", on both sides. It's not simply a collapsing Ponzi scheme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't personally see that there's anything strange here - fraud investigations are long-running things, this one is four years old and near completion. That it's near completion seems to be why we now have the tapes - they're evidence that's finished with - and that the Gardai have kept their existence secret throughout argues a decent level of efficiency to me...

Good point, and i suppose we can only wait and see. The question i would ask is, given the enormity of scale of what was done and the unprecedented damage it has caused to Ireland as a whole, how long is too long to wait, how slow is too slow to move, and what would have been a reasonable time or level of resources to have given this investigation, given how important it is that justice is seen to be done?

This entire affair over the last several years has been marked by a powerful, rich, and well resourced elite being smarter, faster, and several steps ahead of our authorities at all times. Nothing so far has changed in that regard. Anyone concerned has had five years to get their ducks in a row, and relocate to wherever suits them, and any upcoming trials, extraditions, appeals, etc are guaranteed to be dragged out by every legal trick in the book by very well paid lawyers who will run rings around us in their client's interest.

Unless we step things up a gear here in terms of the resources we're giving this, there's a very real prospect of nothing but show trials, and the big guys getting off scott free or evading trial indefinitely.

maninasia

It would have been completely inappropriate for the Gardai to flag these tapes to any member of the government before the investigation was finished. Crime is not a matter for Ministers, but for the law.

Is one really to believe that politicians and senior civil servants weren't aware of the content of these tapes? It seems very unlikely given their incendiary contents and the importance of those contents.

It seems recording conversations is actually a standard thing in the financial industry, so obviously the Department of Finance and Department of Justice must have been well aware of the existence of the tapes.

My guess is senior people knew about them, had heard about the contents by word of mouth etc., but chose not to speak out due to the ongoing investigations and the embarrassing and damaging nature of the content therein. It makes the regulator, the central bank, the department of finance and the Taoiseach's office look like complete chumps or worse.

maninasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Good point, and i suppose we can only wait and see. The question i would ask is, given the enormity of scale of what was done and the unprecedented damage it has caused to Ireland as a whole, how long is too long to wait, how slow is too slow to move, and what would have been a reasonable time or level of resources to have given this investigation, given how important it is that justice is seen to be done?

This entire affair over the last several years has been marked by a powerful, rich, and well resourced elite being smarter, faster, and several steps ahead of our authorities at all times. Nothing so far has changed in that regard. Anyone concerned has had five years to get their ducks in a row, and relocate to wherever suits them, and any upcoming trials, extraditions, appeals, etc are guaranteed to be dragged out by every legal trick in the book by very well paid lawyers who will run rings around us imn their client's interest.

Unless we step things up a gear here in terms of the resources we're giving this, there's a very real prospect of nothing but show trials, and the big guys getting off scott free or evading trial indefinitely.

You are right they've always been at least two steps ahead of the authorities (too strong a word from isn't it), they've set themselves up overseas, transferred their assets to others, declared bankruptcy, setup dummy companies elsewhere and the state facilitated the coverup by continuing to work with developers in NAMA. They've long known what's been coming down the line even before the government telegraphed their intentions to them.

It's also clear that the legislation in Ireland regarding financial matters was a complete and utter joke, for every law related to financial fraud and bankruptcy there's a two lane highway of a loophole you can drive right through it.

renegademaster

maninasia wrote: »

You are right they've always been at least two steps ahead of the authorities (too strong a word from isn't it), they've set themselves up overseas, transferred their assets to others, declared bankruptcy, setup dummy companies elsewhere and the state facilitated the coverup by continuing to work with developers in NAMA. They've long known what's been coming down the line even before the government telegraphed their intentions to them.

It's also clear that the legislation in Ireland regarding financial matters was a complete and utter joke, for every law related to financial fraud and bankruptcy there's a two lane highway of a loophole you can drive right through it.

i would be 2 if i had the authorities boss and all his mates in me pocket!!

Rightwing

keithob wrote: »

ok the latest episode on this excuse of an republic is the directors of a bank taking the piss effectively out of the irish nation and being repsonsible for life changing economic cuts to our society - ill say it again what the **** are we doing about it????

Now the unions agree the latest round of cuts.

The country is well and truely in a shambles the political the banking and the legal system are a ****ing joke with no creditbility.

It is only when we free ourselves from the EU and learn to stand on our own two feet will we cop on.

We need change. We need to look at iceland and do what they done.

We need everybody involved in this change.

50+ people alone committed suicide in the shannon river most likely knock effect of the financial crisis

We all know the sad stories.

We need to come together as a community and resort to arms if needs be to stop what is going on.

There is nothing we can not do if we want it enough.

If we dont make change now it will be worse in 10-15 years time.

And see your local tds etc no matter what party they are with they all have their own agenda

All of these cuts would be coming in regardless of these bankers. The SF and media put out this spin.

We can't afford all these SNA's etc. Did anyone even ever hear of 1 of these 15 years ago? How on earth did we manage? :rolleyes:

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that question is directly addressed. Anglo felt that the CBI would baulk if faced with a request for the full amount they needed - but that does not make it fraud not to ask for the full amount up front.

You're still misunderstanding the law, you're using fraud as the fulcrum around which the question is based.

In raising the fraud aspect as I did in the last post, I was trying to underline the extent of the issue. Perhaps that was getting away from the point. So lets rewind.

For an offence of conspiracy to defraud to exist, it is not necessary for fraud to actually have occurred.

To repeat the tests required for conpiracy to defraud:

1. economic prejudice. Is there evidence of a dishonest agreement to expose the proposed victim to some form of economic risk or disadvantage, or:

2. Is there a dishonest agreement by two or more persons to defraud another by deceiving him into acting contrary to his duty?

Clearly, even if one doesn't believe an event of fraud occurred, that's temporarily irrelevant.

This is why I am trying to emphasise the flexibility of the offence of Conspiracy to Defraud - fraud isn't the test.

In one definitive case on Conspiracy to Defraud, which was R. v. Cooke (1986), as affirmed by the Irish High Court, there was no actual fraud. Equally, in Irish cases you have Conspiracy to Defraud which HAD alleged fraud (interestingly, Countyglen plc. v. Anglo Irish Bank) and others, which had no alleged fraud

Neither is there any necessity to prove deception on behalf of the conspirators, as established in Scott v. Metropolitan Police [1975], and referenced by The Irish High Court in Corcoran v. FitzGerald [1996], merely 'circumstances of dishonesty'. In Scott, Lord Diplock said "Where the intended victim of a "conspiracy to defraud" is a person performing public duties as distinct from a private individual it is sufficient if the purpose is to cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of achieving this purpose are dishonest."


The reason I am bringing up this offence should be clear by now. It is unlike anything we have on statute in terms of having been tested in the courts AND quite an amazing level of flexibility... it is a very broad offence, as the case law shows.

I am assuming that conspiracy to fraud is obvious to everyone.

The reason I moved on to the question of whether fraud existed, and to what extent, is simply because it may aggravate the offence, after the basic test for the offence has been met, and I believe it is likely to be met in this case.

The amount asked for was what was asked for. If the CBI gave it on the basis that the amount given would "sort it out", as per Bowe's rendition of Neary, I think you'll find that there's nothing there but a rather vague verbal seeking of reassurance, to which the bank seems to have returned nothing more concrete than - at best - equally vague verbal reassurances.

The transcripts strongly imply a dishonest course of action taken by Anglo reps in luring the CB to act contrary to their public duty (as per Diplock, above) - this is not even my interpretation, this is the interpretation of FitzGerlald in the tapes, as may be 'corroborated' by the NCB

Anglo would argue, I'm sure, that for the reason given below, the CBI would be in a very good position to judge how likely it was to be the case.

This is one of the 'hundreds' of unanswered factors I raised. I'm not sure what the NCB's responsibilities are, I'm not sure how far a victim to a conpiracy's responsibilities go, I'm sure that is reasonably well settled in case I just haven't looked at it. There is a reason why these offences take so long to come before the courts, there is too much case law to go through, and it is beyond the scope of this thread. I'm simply stating the initial facts in relation to the offence and what it entails on a first glance basis.

However, on a first glance basis, there are no grounds to say 'nothing to see here', in legal terms.

Mr.Micro

maninasia wrote: »

There's been an investigation ongoing for what, 5 years already, yet no charges have been brought against them yet. The only thing the Pols have been talking about is an Oireachtas Inquiry, they must be shaking in their boots at the prospect!
Most of the politicians and civil servants would rather this would all go away...

FG will only be happy to try to find s**t and hurl it at FF in the run up to the next election and any political advantage that may be gained. When Hogan cancelled the investigations into the 6 County Councils and planning irregularities, aka corruption, then its hard to see that FG are that bothered about the justice or rights and wrongs of the Anglo/ banks bailout, all the money you need guarantee debacle.

The whole thing is beyond the authorities here, both the Police and the inadequate laws. Outside help from the US and UK should have been sought from the start, and even then, whether any prosecutions would have resulted is debatable. This whole mess goes very deep and is systemic, in that it was the banks, the central bank, the regulator, the department of finance......all equally incompetent. The wild wild west of finances. No, FG just want dirt so long as it can throw it for gain and still protect itself and the establishment by limiting the inquiry.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, Madoff had been the subject of a series of investigations starting in 1992. They only finally collared him in 2008, when his sons went to the authorities and stated that their father had confessed to them that his scheme was a swindle. Madoff admitted it, and pleaded guilty.

So we're starting from the other end there. As to the investigation into unravelling who lost what, that's still ongoing, even though the Madoff scheme was both smaller and less complex than Anglo, and very much simpler in the sense that it was just a scam, whereas Anglo was a genuine merchant bank whose executives, during the collapse of the bank, may have done or attempted to do things that may, or may not, have tipped over from desperation into fraud.

In Madoff's case there was a swindle, a deliberate swindle, and Madoff knew it, had created it himself that way. In the case of Anglo, much revolves around what the Anglo executives knew, what the Regulator and the DoF knew, what it was possible to know, what projections of the immediate future of the bank would have been reasonable, and what would not, etc etc.

If Anglo's executives genuinely believed they had a fighting chance to keep the bank alive - and there's a more recently exposed Drumm-Bowe conversation where it's explicit that Drumm, at least, thought it could be done - then the whole idea of fraud really drops out of the picture, unless the bank actually lied to the Central Bank about the details of their financial position. If they didn't do that, and didn't themselves know at the time what became clear later on - which in any business is perfectly normal - then there can't be a fraud. Instead, you have two sides both operating in a murk of uncertainty, different narratives possible but optional, the day perhaps going to whoever makes their pitch most forcefully - which, so far, seems to have been Anglo.

So that's going to be a case of "what did they know" vs "what could they have known" vs "what should they have known", on both sides. It's not simply a collapsing Ponzi scheme.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why didn't you bother compare the two actual similar cases ?
Was that because it would highlight the fact I am claiming.
And that is that our speed at charging and indeed finding people guilty of white collar crime is pathetic.

You decided to totally ignore the case of an Irish ponzi scheme which was discovered in 2008 and only resulted in it's beneficary being hauled into court in autumn 2012 on charges.
Hell in jan 2009 justice Peter Kelly found for some of his victims (putting stay on o'brien's assets) and actually said that the investors appeared to have been the victims of a ‘confidence trick’ by Breifne O'Brien.
The Judge also directed that the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation be given details of the court proceedings.

And yet AFAIK he has not been sentenced because guess what, the slimeball has gone to high court claiming he can't get a fair trial.

Oh and whereas the bernie maddof scheme resulted in losses of anything up to 80/90 billion, the o'brien scheme resulted in losses of 10 to 20 million AFAIK.

So please compare those two cases, not madoff versus Anglo, and then come back and tell us how our justice system is working. :mad:

Rightwing

jmayo wrote: »

Why didn't you bother compare the two actual similar cases ?
Was that because it would highlight the fact I am claiming.
And that is that our speed at charging and indeed finding people guilty of white collar crime is pathetic.

You decided to totally ignore the case of an Irish ponzi scheme which was discovered in 2008 and only resulted in it's beneficary being hauled into court in autumn 2012 on charges.
Hell in jan 2009 justice Peter Kelly found for some of his victims (putting stay on o'brien's assets) and actually said that the investors appeared to have been the victims of a ‘confidence trick’ by Breifne O'Brien.
The Judge also directed that the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation be given details of the court proceedings.

And yet AFAIK he has not been sentenced because guess what, the slimeball has gone to high court claiming he can't get a fair trial.

Oh and whereas the bernie maddof scheme resulted in losses of anything up to 80/90 billion, the o'brien scheme resulted in losses of 10 to 20 million AFAIK.

So please compare those two cases, not madoff versus Anglo, and then come back and tell us how our justice system is working. :mad:

Our justice system is shocking.

But, can you jail someone for just being stupid? That's all most of these bankers were, tapes with a few of them cursing and singing a national anthem taking the piss doesn't warrant jail as far as I'm concerned.

If we couldn't nail our ex taoiseach, I can't see how we can nail these.

K-9

Rightwing wrote: »

We can't afford all these SNA's etc. Did anyone even ever hear of 1 of these 15 years ago? How on earth did we manage? :rolleyes:

If you had a child with special needs, not very well tbh.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're still misunderstanding the law, you're using fraud as the fulcrum around which the question is based.

In raising the fraud aspect as I did in the last post, I was trying to underline the extent of the issue. Perhaps that was getting away from the point. So lets rewind.

For an offence of conspiracy to defraud to exist, it is not necessary for fraud to actually have occurred.

To repeat the tests required for conpiracy to defraud:

1. economic prejudice. Is there evidence of a dishonest agreement to expose the proposed victim to some form of economic risk or disadvantage, or:

2. Is there a dishonest agreement by two or more persons to defraud another by deceiving him into acting contrary to his duty?

Clearly, even if one doesn't believe an event of fraud occurred, that's temporarily irrelevant.

This is why I am trying to emphasise the flexibility of the offence of Conspiracy to Defraud - fraud isn't the test.

In one definitive case on Conspiracy to Defraud, which was R. v. Cooke (1986), as affirmed by the Irish High Court, there was no actual fraud. Equally, in Irish cases you have Conspiracy to Defraud which HAD alleged fraud (interestingly, Countyglen plc. v. Anglo Irish Bank) and others, which had no alleged fraud

Neither is there any necessity to prove deception on behalf of the conspirators, as established in Scott v. Metropolitan Police [1975], and referenced by The Irish High Court in Corcoran v. FitzGerald [1996], merely 'circumstances of dishonesty'. In Scott, Lord Diplock said "Where the intended victim of a "conspiracy to defraud" is a person performing public duties as distinct from a private individual it is sufficient if the purpose is to cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of achieving this purpose are dishonest."


The reason I am bringing up this offence should be clear by now. It is unlike anything we have on statute in terms of having been tested in the courts AND quite an amazing level of flexibility... it is a very broad offence, as the case law shows.

I am assuming that conspiracy to fraud is obvious to everyone.

The reason I moved on to the question of whether fraud existed, and to what extent, is simply because it may aggravate the offence, after the basic test for the offence has been met, and I believe it is likely to be met in this case.


The transcripts strongly imply a dishonest course of action taken by Anglo reps in luring the CB to act contrary to their public duty (as per Diplock, above) - this is not even my interpretation, this is the interpretation of FitzGerlald in the tapes, as may be 'corroborated' by the NCB

This is one of the 'hundreds' of unanswered factors I raised. I'm not sure what the NCB's responsibilities are, I'm not sure how far a victim to a conpiracy's responsibilities go, I'm sure that is reasonably well settled in case I just haven't looked at it. There is a reason why these offences take so long to come before the courts, there is too much case law to go through, and it is beyond the scope of this thread. I'm simply stating the initial facts in relation to the offence and what it entails on a first glance basis.

However, on a first glance basis, there are no grounds to say 'nothing to see here', in legal terms.

I appreciate your clarifications, and also agree with you to some extent following those clarifications. What I would say, though, is that 'conspiracy to defraud' is so wide as to encompass almost anything - in that sense, wherever you have two people talking in a way that implies dishonesty, there is "something to see" legally. And I appreciate that you did say that!

However, I think we can go past the question of whether there's "something to see" and be interested in whether there's anything that would stick. And I still think there isn't. Anglo told the CBI that they needed money in order to prevent a bank collapse, and the CBI had to decide whether that it was then in the best interests of the public (I'm assuming they have such a duty) to give Anglo the money they asked for. You are, I think, putting your finger there and saying, well, if Anglo hadn't lied about the amount of money it needed - and Bowe essentially admits on tape that the figure was made up, and that the plan was to get more - then the CBI would probably have made a different decision, because it would have considered that different decision to be in the better interests of the Irish public.

But, accepting that, we still don't have a conspiracy to defraud, because one of the two people is not involved in the negotiations, and the two people concerned are not planning or deciding anything. Bowe is explaining to Fitzgerald his thinking in respect of the negotiating position he has chosen - and, importantly, already operated - without Fitzgerald's input, and Fitzgerald is agreeing that it sounds like a good strategy.

They're not conspiring, then, unless we widen conspiracy to include not merely the hatching of a plan to defraud, but to not notifying the authorities of such a plan. And there, I think, we have a problem, because there is no obligation to report something that is not an offence in itself, and there is no offence here unless there is conspiracy. That seems like a closed circle to me, where failure to report something not itself a crime creates a crime that exists only because of the failure to report the non-crime.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

Why didn't you bother compare the two actual similar cases ?
Was that because it would highlight the fact I am claiming.
And that is that our speed at charging and indeed finding people guilty of white collar crime is pathetic.

You decided to totally ignore the case of an Irish ponzi scheme which was discovered in 2008 and only resulted in it's beneficary being hauled into court in autumn 2012 on charges.
Hell in jan 2009 justice Peter Kelly found for some of his victims (putting stay on o'brien's assets) and actually said that the investors appeared to have been the victims of a ‘confidence trick’ by Breifne O'Brien.
The Judge also directed that the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation be given details of the court proceedings.

And yet AFAIK he has not been sentenced because guess what, the slimeball has gone to high court claiming he can't get a fair trial.

Oh and whereas the bernie maddof scheme resulted in losses of anything up to 80/90 billion, the o'brien scheme resulted in losses of 10 to 20 million AFAIK.

So please compare those two cases, not madoff versus Anglo, and then come back and tell us how our justice system is working. :mad:

Er, I compared Madoff and Anglo because the thread is about Anglo, and your point, I presumed, was that the Anglo investigation is taking too long for your liking. As to the case you mentioned, I think that's covered by the point that Madoff was first investigated in 1992, and wasn't brought to book until 2008.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Mr.Micro wrote: »

FG will only be happy to try to find s**t and hurl it at FF in the run up to the next election and any political advantage that may be gained. When Hogan cancelled the investigations into the 6 County Councils and planning irregularities, aka corruption, then its hard to see that FG are that bothered about the justice or rights and wrongs of the Anglo/ banks bailout, all the money you need guarantee debacle.

The whole thing is beyond the authorities here, both the Police and the inadequate laws. Outside help from the US and UK should have been sought from the start, and even then, whether any prosecutions would have resulted is debatable. This whole mess goes very deep and is systemic, in that it was the banks, the central bank, the regulator, the department of finance......all equally incompetent. The wild wild west of finances. No, FG just want dirt so long as it can throw it for gain and still protect itself and the establishment by limiting the inquiry.

Ironically, FG's reflex of flinging this at FF makes them FF's best friend here. But - at the risk of being monothematic again - what's really being shown up here is the inadequacy of ours laws and regulation, and the stupidity of politicians and civil servants who appear to have thought that inadequate laws and regulation were a good idea.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rightwing

K-9 wrote: »

If you had a child with special needs, not very well tbh.

What I find strange is the sudden surge in these numbers. Resources teachers etc, yet primary principals haven't the time (or the will) to fill some of these urgent gaps. It's not adding up.

Too easy to blame all our woes a few bankers, vast majority of them simply didn't know what they were doing.

Rightwing

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ironically, FG's reflex of flinging this at FF makes them FF's best friend here. But - at the risk of being monothematic again - what's really being shown up here is the inadequacy of ours laws and regulation, and the stupidity of politicians and civil servants who appear to have thought that inadequate laws and regulation were a good idea.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree with this, just shows how limited Kenny is, and indeed the electorate.

Scofflaw

Rightwing wrote: »

I agree with this, just shows how limited Kenny is, and indeed the electorate.

I don't know about the electorate - I think Kenny has misjudged them quite badly if he thinks the majority of the public currently sees clear water between any two sets of politicians.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lbeard

Rightwing wrote: »

Our justice system is shocking.

But, can you jail someone for just being stupid?

When perpetrating a fraud, in the course of running a business the best way to get away with it, and the best defense is to plead incompetence and to make it difficult to tell if it was deliberate or not.

A fraudster I know was up in court a while back. I know how he committed the fraud, and precisely what he did, you'd want to be really gullible not to believe it was a fraud. He pleaded incompetence. The judge didn't really believe him either, but there was nothing to prove it was a fraud.

It doesn't take great brains to commit a major fraud, you just need an absolute disregard for all the people you will hurt in the process.

That's all most of these bankers were, tapes with a few of them cursing and singing a national anthem taking the piss doesn't warrant jail as far as I'm concerned.

In the context, I believe they deserve to be put to death in the most brutal fashion possible.

I know you are rightwing and may have an admiration for their predatory behavior. And you may believe everyone should have their hands tied while their kind - the "winners" - go through our pockets. These people are quite literally worms. Feeble little men, who are only powerful and tough when they have someone protecting them. Sneaks.

Poor Seanie Fitzpatrick can barely enjoy his fine wine and dining for fear that someone will kill him. He can only play golf on exclusive courses where there is heavy security. Where he can play with his other parasitic pals, who slap him on the back and say "Aw Seanie.. You did nothing wrong, only get caught.....The people of Ireland need people like us to lead them....Where would they be without our kind?....We'll look after you Seanie, don't worry about a thing, you're one of us"

maninasia

Rightwing wrote: »

I agree with this, just shows how limited Kenny is, and indeed the electorate.

Don't forget how damaging the content of these tapes are to dealing with the ECB and Germany in particular. There is a good reason there why they didn't want these tapes contents to be aired. Do people really believe they didn't hear about these tapes before?

jobeenfitz

I am not educated enough to understand high flying finance. I am old enough to know that little action will happen if wrong-doing is proved. Politicians are not loved anymore in this country. FG/Labour though not in government at the time are afraid of the truth coming as it could turn to outright hatred for all politicians if they too were implicated.

I would think that some ministers of the government at the time knew Anglo in particular was a basket case long before the guarantee was given. The head of NTMA Patrick Honohan knew for up to a year previous not too deposit money with Anglo. So for those ministers who say they knew nothing, I would guess were lying or very stupid.

I see people on this site and many other sites complaining about the apathy of other people in regard to this issue but I can totally understand this apathy. Over and over again we see little consequence for white collar crime and outright fraud.

Lastly I would say how surprised I am that these tapes survived, I would have thought the powers to be ( bankers and government) would have ensured as much evidence as possible was destroyed.

Scofflaw

Luckily, the fact that these tapes have not only survived, have been published, but were not leaked until the Gardai were finished with them, nor given to the politicians to make political capital of, will change nobody's beliefs about the inability of the Gardai to manage such an investigation, or about the necessary complicity of every politician in suppressing them.

amused,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Lastly I would say how surprised I am that these tapes survived, I would have thought the powers to be ( bankers and government) would have ensured as much evidence as possible was destroyed.

I am only surmising, but with 3 parties at least that have tapes then it could be people who are aggrieved over Anglo ( heck, thats us all:D) and want a bit of revenge. Perhaps knowing that is the best that they can get, against certain names at Anglo such as Drumm, Bowe etc. I can imagine that the Quinns were not happy with Anglo and several other parties?

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anglo told the CBI that they needed money in order to prevent a bank collapse, and the CBI had to decide whether that it was then in the best interests of the public (I'm assuming they have such a duty) to give Anglo the money they asked for.

You are, I think, putting your finger there and saying, well, if Anglo hadn't lied about the amount of money it needed - and Bowe essentially admits on tape that the figure was made up, and that the plan was to get more - then the CBI would probably have made a different decision, because it would have considered that different decision to be in the better interests of the Irish public.

This is broadly what I am saying, correct. However, we can't say what the Central Bank would have done, if they knew the facts. That's a question for the Central Bank, it's a matter for them if they want to make a complaint to the Gardaí.

But, accepting that, we still don't have a conspiracy to defraud, because one of the two people is not involved in the negotiations, and the two people concerned are not planning or deciding anything.

I am not suggesting that this conversation is itself a conspiracy.

No, I am suggesting that representations made to the NCB by the Anglo team, to which this tape refers and to which the speaker, having been a party to those representations, ascribes dishonesty, may be an offence.

If the picture painted in these tapes is correct, then it seems a pretty snug fit for the Diplock test referred to earlier:

Where the intended victim of a "conspiracy to defraud" is a person performing public duties as distinct from a private individual it is sufficient if the purpose is to cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of achieving this purpose are dishonest.

The dishonesty is as well established as it can be, in that it is explicitly states to have occured. Any further establishment of 'dishonest circumstances' to meet the test is a matter for an examination of the true, contemporaneous state of the bank's requirements, and Garda interviews.

It still has to be shown that the NCB acted in a way that it would not otherwise have acted, but I don't know to what lengths a victim to a conspiracy is required to go in that respect. It's a very unconventional defence, and should easily be overcome by the fact that one of the representatives identified a fear that the NCB would indeed refuse an application, essentially in keeping with its public duty:

"They might say the cost to the taxpayer is too high. But if it doesn't look too big at the outset ... if it looks big enough to be important, but not too big that it kind of spoils everything, then, then I think you have a chance ... it can creep up."

And there, I think, we have a problem, because there is no obligation to report something that is not an offence in itself

I don't know where you are getting this.

The question is not so much that there was an obligation to report the true state of the bank's financial needs, although that does raise obvious regulatory issues.

It is an offence to conspire to lure someone into acting in a way that is actually contrary to their public duties, under dishonest circumstances.

Now someone might raise up their hands and say "dishonesty" is not a crime, but actually if it causes an individual or a body corporate economic loss, or persuades an individual or body corporate from acting contrary to its public duty, then yes it can be a crime.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

...can you jail someone for just being stupid? That's all most of these bankers were, tapes with a few of them cursing and singing a national anthem taking the piss doesn't warrant jail as far as I'm concerned.

If we couldn't nail our ex taoiseach, I can't see how we can nail these.

That's factually incorrect, and also defeatist in the extreme.

We could have "nailed" our ex taoiseach, had we had the proper system of laws and correct checks and balances in place, instead of the ridiculous system of toothless tribunals, which (ironically) he himself set in motion. His "guilt" or rather the particulars of what he had actually done (illegal or not), was almost beyond question, even the final report itself confirms that, and what has happened since? He's rode off into the sunset clutching a big cheque, and going on about having never been found guilty of this and that, good name intact, blah blah blah.

Certainly, unless there is a big shift in our attitude to what we as a nation expect our elected officials and administrations to deliver, we are likely to see more of the same behaviour here, but that's no excuse to hang up your gloves and give in and stop fighting for change.

Secondly, with regards to your comment on the bankers, they were not simply stupid, they were clever and knowingly culpable conspirators. The tapes, when taken in conjunction with other eyewitness accounts of what happened in the lead-up and during meetings with officials in relation to the bank guarantee are almost certain to corroborate a conspiracy to willingly defraud the public exchequer and to take advantage of gross negligence on the part of our state institutions, and are very very likely to show that the bank knowingly and callously broke very many core principles of the regulatory framework which it operated under.

Problem is, due to our Dickensian finance laws, although what they did would appear to be as clear as the nose on my face, much of it is not, as yet illegal. Conspiracy to defraud the public exchequer to the tune of €30bn is not a crime in Ireland. Incorrectly labelling garlic as apples to avoid paying tax however, will get you six years in prison.

The government, department of finance, and central bank stand to lose big here, bigger than anyone, with the notable exception of the taxpayer. As a result of what they've done and what we know so far however, Anglo is likely to be hit with a fine and no more than the loss of their license to trade as a financial institution and....Oh wait, too late.

It's laughable.

serfboard

In relation to how long will it take for someone to be jailed have a look at this item.

RTE wrote:

Judge Carroll Moran said that there was a serious breach of trust by Patrick Enright, not only as a solicitor, but as a former employee of Nylerin.

He accepted there was a 19-year delay in the case coming to court, but said that was on foot of applications by Patrick Enright to the High Court, the Supreme Court and even the European Court.

He sentenced him to 12 months in prison and refused leave to appeal.

:eek:

Lbeard

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am only surmising, but with 3 parties at least that have tapes then it could be people who are aggrieved over Anglo ( heck, thats us all:D) and want a bit of revenge. Perhaps knowing that is the best that they can get, against certain names at Anglo such as Drumm, Bowe etc.

Often former employees have evidence of fraud. And they do have an axe to grind.

But if a person gets known as a whistle blower, they will become unemployable. They are consider an untrustworthy person. Someone who'll let the leader down.

I can imagine that the Quinns were not happy with Anglo and several other parties?

But the Quinns were probably up to their necks illegality too. Two of them have been in Mountjoy so far. You don't end up in the Joy for nothing. That place is for serious criminals.

The Quinns are actually very lucky not to be in jail. In some countries if you're responsible for making an insurance company insolvent, you go to jail. The Irish taxpayer had to bail out Quinn insurance too.