Frank Dunlop paid out thousands of euro to corrupt payments to politicians

coolhull

So says the Mahon Tribunal. .But last week a court found that none of the councillrs took money from Dunlop. Our politicians are far too upright and honest to accept corrupt payments.
So where did that money go?
Did he give it to you?

Mr.Micro

coolhull wrote: »

So says the Mahon Tribunal. .But last week a court found that none of the councillrs took money from Dunlop. Our politicians are far too upright and honest to accept corrupt payments.
So where did that money go?
Did he give it to you?

The councillors last week are innocent under the law, as the case did not proceed, as it collapsed. I am sure that Dunlop dished out right left and centre. He is the only one to have received a conviction for corruption.

Cody Pomeray

It's not a question of where any money went. It's civil standard of proof v. criminal standard of proof.

The corruption inquiries in this country require the civil standard of proof as a general principle. Needless to say the criminal courts require more substantial proof, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.

Skid X

coolhull wrote: »

So says the Mahon Tribunal. .But last week a court found that none of the councillrs took money from Dunlop. Our politicians are far too upright and honest to accept corrupt payments.
So where did that money go?
Did he give it to you?

Not true. The trial collapsed because Dunlop was unfit to give evidence.
The court made no findings

coolhull

One way or the other, at this stage nobody will prosecuted. But try going out with no light on your bike, and the law will come down on you with full force. What a great little country...

Iwannahurl

Well, there is insufficient enforcement of road traffic legislation, in my view, but you are probably more likely to be done for not having a light on your bike than for taking bribes from developers.

The letter of the law may be taking its right and proper course in the case of Frank Dunlop, but from the perspective of the ordinary punter it is quite bizarre that a person can be convicted of paying bribes while the people receiving the bribes have not been found guilty of anything.

See also: Ten things you can do in Ireland that almost certainly won’t land you in jail

coolhull

Skid X wrote: »

Not true. The trial collapsed because Dunlop was unfit to give evidence.
The court made no findings

Either way, the councillors walked out of court with their reputations intact. And since someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence, it means no one will be prosecuted now. So if Dunlop paid out bribes, but nobody accepted them, then is he entitled to sue for false imprisonment? He either bribed them or he didn't.

alastair

coolhull wrote: »

since someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence...

Not so.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

Mr.Micro

coolhull wrote: »

Either way, the councillors walked out of court with their reputations intact. And since someone cannot be tried twice for the same offence, it means no one will be prosecuted now. So if Dunlop paid out bribes, but nobody accepted them, then is he entitled to sue for false imprisonment? He either bribed them or he didn't.

I do not think their reputations are intact

Frank Dunlop made corrupt payments totalling £25,000 on behalf of businessman Jim Kennedy to councillors for the rezoning of land in Carrickmines, according to the final report from the Planning and Payments Tribunal.
The report found that then councillors including Liam Cosgrave, Don Lydon, Colm McGrath and Tony Fox accepted corrupt payments.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0731/465623-mahon-tribunal/

It may not be a conviction but it is in record as corruption. Kennedy may face further action from the CAB.

coolhull

alastair wrote: »

Not so.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0027/index.html

Tl:dr but I'll take your word. But who is Dunlop guilty of passing corrupt payments to?

Mr.Micro

coolhull wrote: »

Tl:dr but I'll take your word. But who is Dunlop guilty of passing corrupt payments to?

This article might give a little background information.

Dunlop, who had a public relations company in the 1990s when extensive land banks in Dublin were being rezoned by councillors, served 14 months in prison after pleading guilty to corruption in connection with the rezoning of one of the those land banks, at Carrickmines in south Dublin

.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/no-one-else-likely-to-face-trial-in-planning-corruption-case-1.1474676

This bit also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Dunlop

Criminal Assets Bureau Investigation

The Criminal Assets Bureau successfully obtained a High Court order on July 26, 2006 freezing land assets of 107 acres (0.43 km2) at Carrickmines, County Dublin owned by Jackson Way Properties Ltd and preventing their sale.[3] This means that these cannot be sold or pledged as collateral without the consent of the High Court. CAB contended that these lands had been rezoned on 16 December 1997 by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council from agricultural to industrial after Dunlop bribed and made corrupt payments to councillors to secure their support in the rezoning vote. That rezoning vote increased the value of just 17 acres (69,000 m2) of the property from €8 million to €61 million. CAB has interviewed and took statements from Dunlop between 2004 and 2006. He will be called to testify in the criminal trial.
If this case succeeds the potential money realised by CAB will be substantially more than the yield from gangland criminals since 1996. Other similar cases are likely to ensue involving lands investigated by The Mahon Tribunal.
Prison[edit]

Dunlop himself has been charged with corruption - to which his reply was 'we always knew this day was coming and I will not be contesting the charges'.[4]
The lands in question have been the subject of investigation by The Mahon Tribunal in 2003 and 2004.
On 26 May 2009, he was sentenced to two years in prison for corruption, with the final six months suspended.[5] He was released from prison on 10 July 2010, having served 14 months.

I would presume/surmise, I maybe completely wrong, it was the very boys in the case that collapsed last week that he bribed. Dunlop admitted he bribed, hence his conviction. They admitted nothing, hence the trial. The Mahon tribunal states they did accept bribes.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0731/465623-mahon-tribunal/

Scofflaw

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I do not think their reputations are intact



http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0731/465623-mahon-tribunal/

It may not be a conviction but it is in record as corruption. Kennedy may face further action from the CAB.

I understand the point that Dunlop admitted making corrupt payments, while the councillors contested it, but the end result is still bizarre - Dunlop being convicted and serving prison time for making corrupt payments, but nobody being convicted for receiving the corrupt payments.

It's extraordinary that you can have an admission of corruption by an active agent such as Dunlop, who is then prepared to testify and give details, yet have a complete absence of any resulting convictions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr.Micro

Scofflaw wrote: »

I understand the point that Dunlop admitted making corrupt payments, while the councillors contested it, but the end result is still bizarre - Dunlop being convicted and serving prison time for making corrupt payments, but nobody being convicted for receiving the corrupt payments.

It's extraordinary that you can have an admission of corruption by an active agent such as Dunlop, who is then prepared to testify and give details, yet have a complete absence of any resulting convictions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I totally agree, it is most odd. The defendants were not the type to put their hands up and admit it. It is most unsatisfactory in many ways. The only plus is that the Tribunal found against them, at least they cannot claim complete innocence, unless they challenge the findings, which I doubt they will

woodoo

Thank god these politicians did not take bribes . I knew no irish politician would stoop to that level. We have the best politicians in the world.

coolhull

woodoo wrote: »

Thank god these politicians did not take bribes . I knew no irish politician would stoop to that level. We have the best politicians in the world.

The best, the most truthful, the most honest, wouldn't think of enriching themselves, wouldn't lie just to be returned to office.
Yep, definitely the best little country in the world. We're so lucky.

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I totally agree, it is most odd. The defendants were not the type to put their hands up and admit it. It is most unsatisfactory in many ways. The only plus is that the Tribunal found against them, at least they cannot claim complete innocence...

As far the courts are concerned, the Tribunal report is hearsay. The evidence value of a Tribunal report is precisely 0.

So a trial judge cannot just point to a copy of, say, Volume V of Mahon and direct the jury to convict.

The court has to at least go through the motions of justice, and if the motions cannot be gone through with, then why should it be odd that no conviction can be possible?

coolhull

I understand that the courts cannot accept any evidence or findings from a Tribunal, but again I ask, If Dunlop didn't bribe anyone, then why did he serve a prison term?
Of course I probably have forgotten, but if Dunlop wasn't jailed for corruption and bribery, then just what offence did he commit?

Cody Pomeray

coolhull wrote: »

I understand that the courts cannot accept any evidence or findings from a Tribunal, but again I ask, If Dunlop didn't bribe anyone, then why did he serve a prison term?
Of course I probably have forgotten, but if Dunlop wasn't jailed for corruption and bribery, then just what offence did he commit?

Dunlop's criminal trial is again of little use to the court because what essentially happened was that Dunlop took to the stand and testified against himself, just as he had done at the Tribunal. Dunlop freely offered the testimony upon which the prosecutor relied.

This is one of the reasons offered for the delay in prosecuting the former councillors. Because there was no evidence, the State had to prosecute Dunlop first, get him to admit everything, and then come back and testify for the state. Because without Dunlop's testimony there is - apparently, but I find it hard to believe - no real alternative evidence of corruption.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

coolhull wrote: »

So says the Mahon Tribunal. .But last week a court found that none of the councillrs took money from Dunlop. Our politicians are far too upright and honest to accept corrupt payments.
So where did that money go?
Did he give it to you?

Your post is incorrect, last week a court made no findings at all as the DPP withdrew the case.

edanto

I read that the case was withdrawn due to ill health. If Dunlop's health recovers, is there a possibility of the case being re-heard?

Do we have any facility to admit sworn statements/recorded video evidence in Irish courts?

Cody Pomeray

edanto wrote: »

If Dunlop's health recovers, is there a possibility of the case being re-heard?

Hi health issues are chronic and have been a problem in the past. He's also shown himself to be an unreliable witness. The answer to your question is Yes, but it's a heavily qualified Yes. In fact it's an 'unlikely, but Yes'.

Do we have any facility to admit sworn statements/recorded video evidence in Irish courts?

The facility exists in many courtrooms, no problem there. There is also legal provision for doing so, with the leave of the trial judge. There are scarce grounds for objecting to the judge's discretion, and this is pretty well settled in law.

However, from a practical viewpoint, in the case of an apparently unreliable witness, it might be preferred for the witness to be physically present. the jury simply might not like it, not to be able to judge his demeanour. Some courts have also had some inexplicable technology problems with video link in the past.