Anglo Tapes

Scofflaw

Formalhaut wrote: »

Oh I'm not bigging up the US by any means. But they make an example of people who commit fraud, whereas we can't even be arsed to start a small riot.

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot. And perhaps we need a change in public attitude to venality, too, because as far as I can see, it's tolerated in Ireland because the Irish public tolerates it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Formalhaut

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot. And perhaps we need a change in public attitude to venality, too, because as far as I can see, it's tolerated in Ireland because the Irish public tolerates it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You're not going to get a change in law until you get a change in political attitudes. And to get that the political class needs to be afraid of the electorate. ALL concessions to democracy have come after ordinary people have mobilised and fought for them - the political class have a vested interest in the status quo - why would they want change? For too long in this country they have relied on apathy and venality among the population - a bit more volatility from the people might focus their minds on their jobs.

Gringo180

raymon wrote: »

Hi Gringo.

Is this a protest against , Anglo Management or against FF , or Brian Lenihan, or just a general protest against " some politicians"

Here is some details raymon

https://www.facebook.com/events/584494138262327/

Organisers have changed the location to The GPO.

listermint

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot. And perhaps we need a change in public attitude to venality, too, because as far as I can see, it's tolerated in Ireland because the Irish public tolerates it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And how do you get the ?


Waiting around till the next time one of them knocks on your door, or even better knows to pass your door because you gave out to him last time around.


People power is what is required and thats how to focus and change attitudes.

Scofflaw

Formalhaut wrote: »

You're not going to get a change in law until you get a change in political attitudes. And to get that the political class needs to be afraid of the electorate. ALL concessions to democracy have come after ordinary people have mobilised and fought for them - the political class have a vested interest in the status quo - why would they want change? For too long in this country they have relied on apathy and venality among the population - a bit more volatility from the people might focus their minds on their jobs.

Temporarily, but yes. I have hopes that public attitudes are also changing, now that people see not only that a laissez-faire attitude to venality is costing them, but that they're being laughed at by those who profit from their tolerance. Not even laughed at, in fact - not even considered.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot. And perhaps we need a change in public attitude to venality too, because as far as I can see, it's tolerated in Ireland because the Irish public tolerates it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Quite the point there for sure.

The nation as a whole was in no mood to listen to nay-sayers in the pre 2008 era.

The Anglo "Lads" quite accurately reflect the very type of businessman which pre 2008 Ireland spawned and sent hither and yon to strut their stuff on the World stage.

WE,as in the lumpen Irish,could'nt get enough of the swinging trench-coat,laptop savvy young buck with the high-end Audi....no wonder we ended up with a population who had to turn to Eastern Europe to fix our dripping taps,change our fuses and repair our timberwork.

We also continue to convienently brush aside the fact that the main Political Players in this tragi-comedy were consistent Poll-Toppers in election after election over many long years.....;)

Sierra Oscar

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pretty sickening to think that legislation surrounding white collar crime has not been built on since this all came to light. We are nearly five years on from the emergence of this current financial crisis, yet still no meaningful movement in introducing robust legislation to target white collar crime. If such legislation is not brought forward then this will happen again.

I'm not just blaming the current government either. The entire political system seems to be failing to grapple with this. The government introduced some measures after coming into power, but that's about it. The civil service certainly don't want to encourage movement in this area either, that's for sure. We keep hearing the standard 'it's hard to legislate to tackle white collar crime' - but I'm sure if the will was there then something meaningful could be done.

Scofflaw

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Pretty sickening to think that legislation surrounding white collar crime has not been built on since this all came to light. We are nearly five years on from the emergence of this current financial crisis, yet still no meaningful movement in introducing robust legislation to target white collar crime. If such legislation is not brought forward then this will happen again.

I'm not just blaming the current government either. The entire political system seems to be failing to grapple with this. The government introduced some measures after coming into power, but that's about it. The civil service certainly don't want to encourage movement in this area either, that's for sure. We keep hearing the standard 'it's hard to legislate to tackle white collar crime' - but I'm sure if the will was there then something meaningful could be done.

Investigating white collar crime is genuinely tricky, and unfortunately not a vote-grabber because of that. There are a lot of people getting red-faced over the "lack" of a Garda investigation, when there is a Garda investigation - which is almost certainly the source of these tapes. Yes, it's been running for several years now, because the Fraud Unit aren't investigating someone dipping their fingers in the till at the sweet shop, but the actions of a multi-billion balance sheet bank operating in multiple jurisdictions.

What people want is immediate action, and never mind innocence. People are suckers for that, but it has tended, historically, to be associated with authoritarian regimes, who are then in turn generally associated with worse. It's how authoritarian regimes sell themselves to the people - and if it came to a choice between even another €30bn in taxpayers' money going to a bust bank and living in an authoritarian regime with powers of arbitrary arrest for the unpopular, I'll put my hand in my pocket straight away.

cordially,
Scofflaw

shedweller

jmayo wrote: »

And before you go all balistic, the blame for our getting into the mess in the first place is ours (Ireland as a whole) and it dates back many years, even before the Euro or EU were ever involved with us..

You're having a laugh, surely? This is our fault? Were we rallying on the streets looking for more money down the years? I saw none. All i saw were house prices climbing due to slack lending policies and cheap money. I didn't protest for that.
How come there wasn't a regulator with balls to call a halt to this?
Regulators in other countries can do it. I believe in Sweden you can't sell your house for more than inflation has risen in the time you have it. You can only add on any money you pumped into the house in the form of extension costs, diy etc.
And it's tightly regulated. They seem to be doing ok too.

So please, spare us that insulting line that it's our fault.

Godge

maninasia wrote: »

McWilliams guarantee did not included bailing out all the bondholders.

McWilliams guarantee included everything Anglo wanted. Another patsy he was.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nope. Just pointed out that speculation was speculation. I know that upsets some people, particularly those who claim they know.

But weren't the journalists/commentators that were asking the hard questions of the government not just speculating ?

If it wasn't for the speculation of the people asking the questions then would there have been any questions to answer in the first place ?

You laugh at the government for their denials to the speculation, but you lambasted posters here for the exact same speculation.

If we can't speculate then you might as well close the place down.
A lot of political discussion is speculation and rumour.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm doing it again at the moment, come to that - pointing out that the people who said "I always knew it was a scam" have nothing to pat themselves on the back about, because their belief had nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with mindless reflex cynicism. Same goes for the PRISM leaks - it doesn't justify the conspiracy theory muppets' paranoia, which is still exactly as convincing, because exactly as well grounded in reality, as similar claims from the locked wards in John of God's.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I go by the adage that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then there is good chance it is a bloody duck".
So far it has served me well.
Then again maybe there is a duck like thing out there that is in fact some type of pterosaurs ?
But of course that would be speculation, now wouldn't it ?

BTW there is nothing wrong with cynicism.
If more people were more cynical of our supposed long established and held betters (the clergy, politicans, bankers, gardaí, doctors, etc) then we might not have our history of corruption, child abuse, and flagrant disregard for the public good.

Scofflaw

shedweller wrote: »

You're having a laugh, surely? This is our fault? Were we rallying on the streets looking for more money down the years? I saw none. All i saw were house prices climbing due to slack lending policies and cheap money. I didn't protest for that.
How come there wasn't a regulator with balls to call a halt to this?
Regulators in other countries can do it. I believe in Sweden you can't sell your house for more than inflation has risen in the time you have it. You can only add on any money you pumped into the house in the form of extension costs, diy etc.
And it's tightly regulated. They seem to be doing ok too.

So please, spare us that insulting line that it's our fault.

We don't have tight regulation because we haven't called for it, and this is a democracy. And yes, that makes it our responsibility, whoever's "fault" it may be.

regards,
Scofflaw

shedweller

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't have tight regulation because we haven't called for it, and this is a democracy. And yes, that makes it our responsibility, whoever's "fault" it may be.

regards,
Scofflaw

So lets have regulation that works then, with complete transparency.

listermint

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't have tight regulation because we haven't called for it, and this is a democracy. And yes, that makes it our responsibility, whoever's "fault" it may be.

regards,
Scofflaw

How do you 'call for it' Phone up enda and ask ?


Genuinely interested ?

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

But weren't the journalists/commentators that were asking the hard questions of the government not just speculating ?

If it wasn't for the speculation of the people asking the questions then would there have been any questions to answer in the first place ?

You laugh at the government for their denials to the speculation, but you lambasted posters here for the exact same speculation.

If we can't speculate then you might as well close the place down.
A lot of political discussion is speculation and rumour.

And as long as that's what everybody accepts it as being, that's fine. But people "knew" what was happening, or said they did, even if most of what they said turned out to be complete rubbish. Speculation was not in any way limited to people just speculating whether the IMF were coming in - you remember that because it was correct, but you're leaving out the rest of the speculation, much of which was absurd panicky drivel.

As to the media, I have, I fear, no control over them.

jmayo wrote: »

I go by the adage that "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then there is good chance it is a bloody duck".
So far it has served me well.
Then again maybe there is a duck like thing out there that is in fact some type of pterosaurs ?
But of course that would be speculation, now wouldn't it ?

BTW there is nothing wrong with cynicism.
If more people were more cynical of our supposed long established and held betters (the clergy, politicans, bankers, gardaí, doctors, etc) then we might not have our history of corruption, child abuse, and flagrant disregard for the public good.

We've always been cynical - famous for it - and we have that history, so no. Our cynicism is largely just another face for our hypocrisy, and we mostly use it to tell ourselves "sure, if I/they didn't do it, someone else would" and "sure, they're all at it, why should I worry about it" to justify our own peccadilloes. What would make a difference is if we were honest and responsible, rather than knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The Anglo boys on the tapes beat your cynicism hollow, and I'm not celebrating it. I don't think you are, either.

regards,
Scofflaw

MrGreenfun

Well i think that the bankers should be locked up and their assets ceased exactly like any other criminal would. They should be treated like the criminals they are and i in my opinion WE are to blame. By WE i mean the irish people. how long are we just going to take this. in Brazil there was millions of protesters over a 10 cent rise in bus prices. we need to cop on and start standing up for ourselves because if we dont nobody is going to and until we notice this things are just gonna get worse and worse.

Tea drinker

Idbatterim wrote: »

this may be a naive question, but when they knew how totally f***ed the situation was, should they not have come clean to Brian Lenihan, the central bank or whoever was relevant? I.e honesty is the best policy approach?! I cant believe they knew the tax payer would likely pick up the tab for insane amounts of money and have no guilty conscience in doing it!!!!

Nope. Not at all. They have their company and the state needs to look after itself. They are loyal to that which pays them.
Forget about nationalism and pride, especially here in Ireland. Think local, think families.
Face it, Ireland was an easy target - weak societal structure outside of the pub, no real patriotism. Either we start building a society the way we want or it happens again and again and again. And that starts with consequences. Nothing has changed, no prison sentences. Every opportunity is used to try to inflate the bubble. FF haven't gone away you know.... nudge nudge wink wink.

Where are the guys now to defend their huge salaries and pensions?
The guys who are saying we need to pay megabucks to attract the best and brightest? And we got these lads :-)

maringo

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't have tight regulation because we haven't called for it, and this is a democracy. And yes, that makes it our responsibility, whoever's "fault" it may be.

regards,
Scofflaw

We have tight regulation on property tax, road tax, dog licences and tv licences etc. No regulations on CHURNING and little on WHITE COLLAR FRAUD. In my view this was fraud on the taxpayer on a massive scale and the monies must be recovered no matter how long it takes INCLUDING INTEREST and the perpetrators serve their time. Can it happen - depends on the current government and law enforcement taking action and doing what they are paid by the taxpayer to do. Will it happen - on past record I doubt it......

jmayo

shedweller wrote: »

You're having a laugh, surely? This is our fault? Were we rallying on the streets looking for more money down the years? I saw none. All i saw were house prices climbing due to slack lending policies and cheap money. I didn't protest for that.
How come there wasn't a regulator with balls to call a halt to this?
Regulators in other countries can do it. I believe in Sweden you can't sell your house for more than inflation has risen in the time you have it. You can only add on any money you pumped into the house in the form of extension costs, diy etc.
And it's tightly regulated. They seem to be doing ok too.

So please, spare us that insulting line that it's our fault.

I am not blaming myself because short of assasinating some politicans my vote wasn't enough to prevent plenty of Irish people from electing the politicans who made sure the bubble got even more bubblier.
Likewise if you didn't vote for the parties in power, that contiuned the lunacy, then I am not blaming you.

But who the fook did vote for the ff, pds, greens ?
Who were the ones that actually bought the overpriced crud that was being produced ?
Who were the ones that started buying investment properties ?
Who were the ones that started buying section 23/50 properties to offset their property investments ?
All these people contributed in some way to the bubble and the subsequent mess.
Some have a lot more to answer for than others.

And when I say "our", I mean our collective society.
We, as voters and citizens, never demanded that our regulatory authorities reform after it did nothing when banks went to the wall in the past.
Ever hear of patrick gallagher or joe moore, both close friends and no doubt both slush fund constributors to one cj haughey ?
We set the standards for regulation years ago and they were pi** poor.

For once I agree with Scofflaw, who gave a rats ass about regulation if it didn't concern them.
How many people really gave a rats ass about how Eugene McErlean was treated by the IFSRA/CB for daring to challenge the status quo and highlight unethical behaviour in one of the major banks.
How many people really cared about how Eithne Tinney was treated for challenging the status quo in EBS ?

Shure wasn't the money flowing and shure weren't the naysayers just whiners who should go and committ suicide.
BTW when bertie uttered that sentiment a big chunk of the audience present laughed and chuckled.
That is why we as a nation are at fault.

EricPraline

shedweller wrote: »

Were we rallying on the streets looking for more money down the years? I saw none.
...
Regulators in other countries can do it. I believe in Sweden you can't sell your house for more than inflation has risen in the time you have it. You can only add on any money you pumped into the house in the form of extension costs, diy etc..

Do you honestly believe there would have been a groundswell of public support for something like that? If people had been prevented from selling properties in the 2000s for many multiples of their 1990s value, there probably would have been rallying on the streets, and certainly any politician supporting that kind of regulation would have been severely punished at that ballot box.

Light-touch regulation and flexible application of the law is something that is endemic in Irish society - from banking to drink driving - something that most people are happy with, until it adversely affects them.

Bits_n_Bobs

Scofflaw wrote: »

What we need, though, is a change of law, not a riot. And perhaps we need a change in public attitude to venality, too, because as far as I can see, it's tolerated in Ireland because the Irish public tolerates it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Which came first - the riot or the change in law? In Ireland I suspect the riot...

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's the point, they didn't. All the evidence says they didn't, and that's what the tapes again make clear. The Financial Regulator and Central bank had no idea what was happening in the banks. Anglo coming in was a brown-trouser day for the very people who were supposed to be overseeing them, and Anglo's deliberately lowball estimate of their needs was clearly a huge shock.

Most of the rest of what you're saying makes perfect sense to me, but the above point doesn't tho; Occam's razor says they would have known.

By the time Morgan Kelly released his predictions (June-July 2007), Market values for the major banks had already reduced by one full third, which co-incided with Bertie Ahern's 'suicide speech':

This article from 12th July 2007 comments on the Irish financial losses:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish-banks-the-major-losers-in-share-turmoil-26303996.html

CYRIL HARDIMAN – 12 JULY 2007

Irish stocks continue to suffer more than other European markets and a a mood of depression hung over the Dublin bourse yesterday as the latest retreat was extended into a third successive session, with the ISEQ index falling back to a four-month low.

Much more of a concern for Irish investos right now is the continued underperformance of Irish financials.

House prices are in decline; there has been a sharp fall-off in housing starts, and the demand for new mortgages is falling. So far this year, the four major stocks in this sector have fallen between 9pc (Anglo) to 16pc (Bank of Ireland).

But more importantly, even if it appears the general government may have an alibi, and that these tapes appear to support their alibi of gross negligence as opposed to deception -> can the same be said for Brian Cowen?

It certainly appears there may be circumstantial evidence that Brian Cowen may have known what was transpiring when we review his actions and his soundbites from the time period, and consider his role as MoF.

I don't see any evidence which exonerates him, the opposite, the evidence presents vital questions which he must answer.

Drumm claims that Cowen asked the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) to invest in Anglo in April 2008 at David Drumm’s request, the Irish Daily Mail reports (not available online).

However, the head of the NTMA Michael Somers has said that no such request was made of him.

In the Dáil on Wednesday, Cowen specifically denied that Drumm had asked him to talk to Michael Somers. Today, a spokesperson for the Taoiseach said Drumm’s claims were not based in fact, and had already been discredited by Somers.

Cowen was responding to queries posed by TDs during an extended Leader’s Questions session, following revelations at the weekend that he had spoken by phone to Sean Fitzpatrick in March 2008 to discuss Anglo shares and had played golf and had dinner with the former Anglo chairman in July 2008.

Cowen starting to remind me of King Lear - 'everyone else is mad, I'm the only sane one.'

shedweller

jmayo wrote: »

I am not blaming myself because short of assasinating some politicans my vote wasn't enough to prevent plenty of Irish people from electing the politicans who made sure the bubble got even more bubblier.
Likewise if you didn't vote for the parties in power, that contiuned the lunacy, then I am not blaming you.

But who the fook did vote for the ff, pds, greens ?
Who were the ones that actually bought the overpriced crud that was being produced ?
Who were the ones that started buying investment properties ?
Who were the ones that started buying section 23/50 properties to offset their property investments ?
All these people contributed in some way to the bubble and the subsequent mess.
Some have a lot more to answer for than others.

And when I say "our", I mean our collective society.
We, as voters and citizens, never demanded that our regulatory authorities reform after it did nothing when banks went to the wall in the past.
Ever hear of patrick gallagher or joe moore, both close friends and no doubt both slush fund constributors to one cj haughey ?
We set the standards for regulation years ago and they were pi** poor.

For once I agree with Scofflaw, who gave a rats ass about regulation if it didn't concern them.
How many people really gave a rats ass about how Eugene McErlean was treated by the IFSRA/CB for daring to challenge the status quo and highlight unethical behaviour in one of the major banks.
How many people really cared about how Eithne Tinney was treated for challenging the status quo in EBS ?

Shure wasn't the money flowing and shure weren't the naysayers just whiners who should go and committ suicide.
BTW when bertie uttered that sentiment a big chunk of the audience present laughed and chuckled.
That is why we as a nation are at fault.

In fairness, i have to agree. Our apathy has gotten us into this mess. Now, where to go from here. What do we do that isn't apathetic? What WILL change how all this nonsense works in the future?

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Most of the rest of what you're saying makes perfect sense to me, but the above point doesn't tho; Occam's razor says they would have known.

By the time Morgan Kelly released his predictions (June-July 2007), Market values for the major banks had already reduced by one full third, which co-incided with Bertie Ahern's 'suicide speech':

This article from 12th July 2007 comments on the Irish financial losses:
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish-banks-the-major-losers-in-share-turmoil-26303996.html



But more importantly, even if it appears the general government may have an alibi, and that these tapes appear to support their alibi of gross negligence as opposed to deception -> can the same be said for Brian Cowen?

It certainly appears there may be circumstantial evidence that Brian Cowen may have known what was transpiring when we review his actions and his soundbites from the time period, and consider his role as MoF.

I don't see any evidence which exonerates him, the opposite, the evidence presents vital questions which he must answer.

It's starting to remind me of King Lear - 'everyone else is mad, I'm the only sane one.'

I haven't seen any evidence presented that Cowen was 'corrupt' in the sense of taking personal money or favours in exchange for favourable decisions, legislation, and pressure for the banks. The latter undeniably exist, but are not of themselves evidence of personal corruption, because personal corruption is not required to explain them.

A perfectly adequate explanation can be made based on the "over-investment" of Irish politicians in the success of the financial sector, which led to their letting the banks have their way in nearly everything, for fear of killing the goose that laid the golden - or at least gilt-edged - eggs.

As a result I don't really see a clear division between negligence and deception here. What I see is regulatory capture, groupthink, and wilful blindness on the part of the regulators, with similar amongst the politicians, matched on the other side by cynical self-interest and arrogant over-optimism. The best characterisation I can think of is "wilful negligence".

This is not, to me, a tragedy of grand villains, but on the contrary, a tragedy of small incompetents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Godge

maringo wrote: »

We have tight regulation on property tax, .

This is the most recent tax and for the first time we have made it very difficult to avoid paying it, but look at the howling and screaming and crying on these boards about how unfair and draconian it is.

maringo wrote: »

road tax,.

Yes, there are no foreign registered cars travelling around Dublin for years without being registered. Have a look around you!

maringo wrote: »

dog licences .

That is funny.

maringo wrote: »

and tv licences etc..

16% don't pay according to the last figures.

maringo wrote: »

No regulations on CHURNING and little on WHITE COLLAR FRAUD. In my view this was fraud on the taxpayer on a massive scale and the monies must be recovered no matter how long it takes INCLUDING INTEREST and the perpetrators serve their time. Can it happen - depends on the current government and law enforcement taking action and doing what they are paid by the taxpayer to do. Will it happen - on past record I doubt it......

Ireland has a culture of getting away with what you can get away with from the black economy of the lowest labourer to the highest banker in the country. Even our academics are at it - do you remember all those payments in UCD a few years ago?

shedweller

EricPraline wrote: »

Do you honestly believe there would have been a groundswell of public support for something like that? If people had been prevented from selling properties in the 2000s for many multiples of their 1990s value, there probably would have been rallying on the streets, and certainly any politician supporting that kind of regulation would have been severely punished at that ballot box.

Light-touch regulation and flexible application of the law is something that is endemic in Irish society - from banking to drink driving - something that most people are happy with, until it adversely affects them.

But it would have prevented us from getting into this mess, would it not?

Now is the time to propose a bill that does just what i have said. I can guarantee you there would be a lot of public support for it (tie house prices to inflation, or some other stabilising rule). It won't happen in 10 years or so when the good times return, thats for sure.

Now is the time; change how the system works NOW!!
The people of Ireland need to vote on this.

Chips Lovell

The guards may not have been the source of the tapes. They may also have been obtained by discovery.

Godge

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence presented that Cowen was 'corrupt' in the sense of taking personal money or favours in exchange for favourable decisions, legislation, and pressure for the banks. The latter undeniably exist, but are not of themselves evidence of personal corruption, because personal corruption is not required to explain them.

A perfectly adequate explanation can be made based on the "over-investment" of Irish politicians in the success of the financial sector, which led to their letting the banks have their way in nearly everything, for fear of killing the goose that laid the golden - or at least gilt-edged - eggs.

As a result I don't really see a clear division between negligence and deception here. What I see is regulatory capture, groupthink, and wilful blindness on the part of the regulators, with similar amongst the politicians, matched on the other side by cynical self-interest and arrogant over-optimism. The best characterisation I can think of is "wilful negligence".

This is not, to me, a tragedy of grand villains, but on the contrary, a tragedy of small incompetents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that neither Cowen nor Lenihan were corrupt in the sense that you mean. However, they (and FF in general) surrounded themselves with the great and the good whether it was in the Galway tent or down in golf clubs in Wicklow or late night visits to economists before decisions are taken. But Cowen and Lenihan weren't the brightest and they listened to those around them. So when Seanie, Dermot and the boys showed up and said we need a little dig-out to help us through a small problem, they were more than happy to oblige as the dig-out has a long history in FF. And in true FF fashion, they never asked another question, just made it happen.

Scofflaw

Independent.ie ‏@Independent_ie

Taoiseach says gardai seized tapes under warrant four years ago. #insideanglo #anglotapes

As said, looks like a leak from the investigation itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't seen any evidence presented that Cowen was 'corrupt' in the sense of taking personal money or favours in exchange for favourable decisions, legislation, and pressure for the banks. The latter undeniably exist, but are not of themselves evidence of personal corruption, because personal corruption is not required to explain them.

A perfectly adequate explanation can be made based on the "over-investment" of Irish politicians in the success of the financial sector, which led to their letting the banks have their way in nearly everything, for fear of killing the goose that laid the golden - or at least gilt-edged - eggs.

But if Cowen was the Minister for Finance, then the Taoiseach,
and the Financial Regulator and Department of Finance claim/feign ignorance,
how can Cowen not be guilty of corruption?

That must mean either the head of the department/head of the government, as the case may be, withheld vital information, or the department are not as innocent as they claim?

It's much more plausible to believe that Cowen withheld information, rather than a department wide conspiracy.