Was it a mistake for Drumm to go on the lamb?

Labarbapostiza

David Drumm, a man who needs no introductions, has been denied a bankruptcy declaration by a Massachusetts court.

In his judgement, Judge Frank Bailey found Drumm was “not remotely credible”, his conduct was “fraudulent” and his court statements replete with “outright lies”.

Being not remotely credible, fraudulent, and making statements replete with outright lies, is generally considered to be within Irish Rugby Federation rules. Did Drumm make a big mistake going on the run? What would have happened in Ireland. I couldn't imagine an Irish judge questioning the integrity of such a man as Drumm.

Should he come home for his gentle slap on the hand?

234

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

What would have happened in Ireland. I couldn't imagine an Irish judge questioning the integrity of such a man as Drumm.

Can you explain this bit? Specifically why, if Drumm gave the same evidence in Ireland, an Irish judge who came to the same conclusion would not articulate it?

And apologies if I'm completely jumping the gun here, but if you are going to start making generalisations about judges being part of some kind of ruling class that doesn't question its own members, then please provide specific verifiable references.

SpaceTime

Since this case was never put before an Irish judge we'll never know.

smcgiff

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Should he come home for his gentle slap on the hand?

He may have no choice if the extradition proceedings are successful.

conorh91

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Did Drumm make a big mistake going on the run? What would have happened in Ireland.

Sorry if this sounds sarky, but why do people confuse this forum with the Office of the DPP? That's not just directed at you, OP.

We can speculate that Drumm might face similar charges to the Chairman of Anglo, but from a purely legal standpoint, and not being in possession of the full facts, the particulars of any charge, nor the charges themselves, anybody who predicts the future is guessing it.

It has been suggested that Drumm will be prosecuted for perjury in the USA, and that carries with it a term of up to five years imprisonment.

I don't think any decision has been made on that prosecution, according to media reports.

I suspect more people would prefer to see that prosecution go ahead than those who wish to see Drumm extradited to Ireland, their faith in Irish company law having been deservedly shaken.

smcgiff

conorh91 wrote: »

I suspect more people would prefer to see that prosecution go ahead than those who wish to see Drumm extradited to Ireland, their faith in Irish company law having been deservedly shaken.

Couldn't they both happen, prosecution in the US followed by extradition once freed if jailed in the US.

tayto lover

smcgiff wrote: »

Couldn't they both happen, prosecution in the US followed by extradition once freed if jailed in the US.

Followed by a suspended sentence and a big job with a bank or NAMA.

conorh91

smcgiff wrote: »

Couldn't they both happen, prosecution in the US followed by extradition once freed if jailed in the US.

Yes it could, I probably wasn't sufficiently clear in that sense. Plus, there is the added benefit that a successful US prosecution, if it leads to a prison term, might allow for the fade factor in terms of adverse pre-trial publicity in Ireland.

Regardless of the fade factor, I just think it's a shame that Irish people likely have more confidence in the US courts' ability to impose a prison sentence than the Irish courts' ability, especially in respect of white-collar crime.

porsche959

conorh91 wrote: »

Regardless of the fade factor, I just think it's a shame that Irish people likely have more confidence in the US courts' ability to impose a prison sentence than the Irish courts' ability, especially in respect of white-collar crime.

Given sentences such as in, for example, the Conrad Black case and the Bernard Ebbers case (the latter I thought was excessive) that perception does seem to have some grounding in reality.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/04/conrad-black-returns-to-toronto-after-serving-jail-time-in-u-s/

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

On the other hand, contrary to popular perception, there have been few if any prosecutions in the US with regard to the bank collapses.

So the public perception that the Irish have been lax by comparison to the Americans in bringing 'bad bankers' to justice is basically just flat out wrong.

(I did not mention the Madoff case as I do not believe it is relevant. What he did was particularly egregious, deliberate and over a huge period of time).

tipptom

I think when David Drumm offered to pay back the money a few years back which included his pension that some sort of a deal should have been sorted with him at that time where he could have come back to Ireland.paid the money and played a sort of a whistleblower role in to what happened and who was responsible, a full and frank disclosure for some sort of reduced charges.

porsche959

tipptom wrote: »

I think when David Drumm offered to pay back the money a few years back which included his pension that some sort of a deal should have been sorted with him at that time where he could have come back to Ireland.paid the money and played a sort of a whistleblower role in to what happened and who was responsible, a full and frank disclosure for some sort of reduced charges.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me but the public/media/left wing politicans baying for blood would not have accepted it.

conorh91

porsche959 wrote: »

On the other hand, contrary to popular perception, there have been few if any prosecutions in the US with regard to the bank collapses.

So the public perception that the Irish have been lax by comparison to the Americans in bringing 'bad bankers' to justice is basically just flat out wrong.

That is all true. By its very nature, and having regard to the resources of the respective accuseds, white-collar crime will never be as easy to prosecute as 'ordinary' crime in any country, and even if they are convicted, white-collar criminals will be better-able to avail of mitigating factors at sentencing.

We have a tendency to believe that we are the worst at everything in this country. Nevertheless, the Companies Acts contains hundreds of offences, and possibly hundreds others are available through other legislation and at common law.

tipptom wrote: »

I think when David Drumm offered to pay back the money a few years back which included his pension that some sort of a deal should have been sorted with him at that time where he could have come back to Ireland.paid the money and played a sort of a whistleblower role in to what happened and who was responsible, a full and frank disclosure for some sort of reduced charges.

There was already a deal on immunity struck with a senior official in Anglo. I think the state should be careful with regard who is allowed to avail of those deals.

hullaballoo

porsche959 wrote: »

That actually makes a lot of sense to me but the public/media/left wing politicans baying for blood would not have accepted it.

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of left wing, there.

Labarbapostiza

conorh91 wrote: »

I suspect more people would prefer to see that prosecution go ahead than those who wish to see Drumm extradited to Ireland, their faith in Irish company law having been deservedly shaken.

234 wrote: »

And apologies if I'm completely jumping the gun here, but if you are going to start making generalisations about judges being part of some kind of ruling class that doesn't question its own members, then please provide specific verifiable references.

The judges are part of some kind of ruling class. And I don't think anyone could or would credibly dispute that fact. They're not the lolly pop ladies. They are the elite lolly pop ladies - and that is not in any way disputable.

There is a near endless litany of high crimes of immense social damage in the financial services in the US, UK, etc, where there has been either no prosecution, or fines have been levied, or individuals escaped the full force of the law even in instances where they have fully admitted blatant criminality.

The issue isn't really limited to Ireland, and this I believe is where Mr Drumm, and Mr Lynn have come a cropper, by going on the run, instead of staying to face the music - which as it turns out for those who stayed, to be as gruelling and harsh as a collection of Bach concertos.

I'm not saying the judges are part of an evil cabal, quite on the contrary, they're doing what they believe best for society. In the different countries what appears to have been happening is an element of pulling on the green jersey, or whatever the appropriate national colour. And the best thing the prosecution services believe is good for their respective societies is not to exert the full force of the law as far as their elites are concerned.

Drumm is an elite in Ireland, but in the US he is an outsider. And that's why he's getting nailed. If he was in England, and an insider in England, he'd be fine. There would be a reticence in driving any kind of prosecution or questioning of Drumm's integrity - as that would undermine the integrity of the other elites, and threaten society as a whole. Drumm's approach was no different in it's dishonesty from the approach an American insider would take, and prepared as such by his American legal representatives, on the assumption that as the former chief executive, of a multi-billion dollar business, he'd get the insider treatment. Apparently not. Punishing Drumm does not pose a systemic threat - and it even may make the system look like it functions.

Drumm is a liar. A man who delights in his mendacity. We have tapes.


The Irish elites view of punishing any of the Irish banking elites, is that it is mob justice. That it doesn't serve country - and that in fact it undermines it.

234

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The judges are part of some kind of ruling class. And I don't think anyone could or would credibly dispute that fact. They're not the lolly pop ladies. They are the elite lolly pop ladies - and that is not in any way disputable.

There is a near endless litany of high crimes of immense social damage in the financial services in the US, UK, etc, where there has been either no prosecution, or fines have been levied, or individuals escaped the full force of the law even in instances where they have fully admitted blatant criminality.

The issue isn't really limited to Ireland, and this I believe is where Mr Drumm, and Mr Lynn have come a cropper, by going on the run, instead of staying to face the music - which as it turns out for those who stayed, to be as gruelling and harsh as a collection of Bach concertos.

I'm not saying the judges are part of an evil cabal, quite on the contrary, they're doing what they believe best for society. In the different countries what appears to have been happening is an element of pulling on the green jersey, or whatever the appropriate national colour. And the best thing the prosecution services believe is good for their respective societies is not to exert the full force of the law as far as their elites are concerned.

Drumm is an elite in Ireland, but in the US he is an outsider. And that's why he's getting nailed. If he was in England, and an insider in England, he'd be fine. There would be a reticence in driving any kind of prosecution or questioning of Drumm's integrity - as that would undermine the integrity of the other elites, and threaten society as a whole. Drumm's approach was no different in it's dishonesty from the approach an American insider would take, and prepared as such by his American legal representatives, on the assumption that as the former chief executive, of a multi-billion dollar business, he'd get the insider treatment. Apparently not. Punishing Drumm does not pose a systemic threat - and it even may make the system look like it functions.

Drumm is a liar. A man who delights in his mendacity. We have tapes.


The Irish elites view of punishing any of the Irish banking elites, is that it is mob justice. That it doesn't serve country - and that in fact it undermines it.

What you say has a lot of intuitive appeal, if has become part of the post-crash narrative that we all seem to have adopted. However, again, can you point to specific financial crimes, citing the actual offence and the facts supporting it (not just "bankers ruined the country) and where they have gone unprosecuted for the reasons you suggest?

Financial crime is always a tricky area and it rarely boils down to an insider v outsider dichotomy.

Also, I would challenge the logic of the above. Drumm is by now considered an outsider by everybody. He is toxic and I would say no longer holds a place amongst the pantheon of the elite as you depict it. So there is no longer any interest in maintaining his status. I doubt the DPP is sitting on her hands, worrying that she will be implicitly admitting the fallibility of the upper classes by initiating proceedings.

conorh91

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Drumm is an elite in Ireland, but in the US he is an outsider. And that's why he's getting nailed. If he was in England, and an insider in England, he'd be fine.

Uh-oh, someone's been reading David McWilliams.

That stuff will rot your brain, you know.

porsche959

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The judges are part of some kind of ruling class. And I don't think anyone could or would credibly dispute that fact. They're not the lolly pop ladies. They are the elite lolly pop ladies - and that is not in any way disputable.

There is a near endless litany of high crimes of immense social damage in the financial services in the US, UK, etc, where there has been either no prosecution, or fines have been levied, or individuals escaped the full force of the law even in instances where they have fully admitted blatant criminality.

The issue isn't really limited to Ireland, and this I believe is where Mr Drumm, and Mr Lynn have come a cropper, by going on the run, instead of staying to face the music - which as it turns out for those who stayed, to be as gruelling and harsh as a collection of Bach concertos.

I'm not saying the judges are part of an evil cabal, quite on the contrary, they're doing what they believe best for society. In the different countries what appears to have been happening is an element of pulling on the green jersey, or whatever the appropriate national colour. And the best thing the prosecution services believe is good for their respective societies is not to exert the full force of the law as far as their elites are concerned.

Drumm is an elite in Ireland, but in the US he is an outsider. And that's why he's getting nailed. If he was in England, and an insider in England, he'd be fine. There would be a reticence in driving any kind of prosecution or questioning of Drumm's integrity - as that would undermine the integrity of the other elites, and threaten society as a whole. Drumm's approach was no different in it's dishonesty from the approach an American insider would take, and prepared as such by his American legal representatives, on the assumption that as the former chief executive, of a multi-billion dollar business, he'd get the insider treatment. Apparently not. Punishing Drumm does not pose a systemic threat - and it even may make the system look like it functions.

Drumm is a liar. A man who delights in his mendacity. We have tapes.


The Irish elites view of punishing any of the Irish banking elites, is that it is mob justice. That it doesn't serve country - and that in fact it undermines it.

I think most of this makes sense. Only element I disagree with is re Michael Lynn, he was only ever a two bit solicitor made good and never part of the elite establishment. In fact the other solicitor whose house of cards toppled around the same time as Lynn's didn't 'do a runner' was duly prosecuted and got what ranks as a fairly tough sentence by Irish white collar crime standards.

But I completely agree with the thrust of your narrative.

porsche959

hullaballoo wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of left wing, there.

?

porsche959

234 wrote: »

However, again, can you point to specific financial crimes, citing the actual offence and the facts supporting it (not just "bankers ruined the country) and where they have gone unprosecuted for the reasons you suggest?

Not really a fair question. But to have had so few prosecutions in the US and UK banks in particular, it defies credibility that there isn't some type of insider politics at work in, more or less, the manner in which Labarbapostiza describes.

Compare and contrast to the large number of prosecutions which took place as regards the Savings and Loans banks scandal of the late 1980's. The scandal was significant but of less systemic importance to the US economy than the 2008/2009 crash. These guys were local big wigs but not Wall Street inner circle in most cases. It's quite striking the difference.

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

234

porsche959 wrote: »

Not really a fair question. But to have had so few prosecutions in the US and UK banks in particular, it defies credibility that there isn't some type of insider politics at work in, more or less, the manner in which Labarbapostiza describes.

Compare and contrast to the large number of prosecutions which took place as regards the Savings and Loans banks scandal of the late 1980's. The scandal was significant but of less systemic importance to the US economy than the 2008/2009 crash. These guys were local big wigs but not Wall Street inner circle in most cases. It's quite striking the difference.

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

It's only significant issue if there have been crimes, which have then gone unprosecuted. This might be indicative of pandering to a certain class of persons but could equally be indicative of a lack of evidence or there being no realistic chance of success, etc.

However, if all you can say is that there have financial disasters and unpalatable behaviour, then this doesn't mean anything. Just because we might disapprove of the behaviour of certain bank officers, doesn't equate to criminality.

So again, if anybody can point to actual criminality which has gone unprosecuted for reasons of favouritism, then there might be an argument here. Otherwise, it's just speculation based on popular prejudice.

Additionally, we should remember that Drumm was in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings in the US. Completely different to financial crime.

porsche959

234 wrote: »

It's only significant issue if there have been crimes, which have then gone unprosecuted. This might be indicative of pandering to a certain class of persons but could equally be indicative of a lack of evidence or there being no realistic chance of success, etc.

However, if all you can say is that there have financial disasters and unpalatable behaviour, then this doesn't mean anything. Just because we might disapprove of the behaviour of certain bank officers, doesn't equate to criminality.

So again, if anybody can point to actual criminality which has gone unprosecuted for reasons of favouritism, then there might be an argument here. Otherwise, it's just speculation based on popular prejudice.

Additionally, we should remember that Drumm was in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings in the US. Completely different to financial crime.

If that is your thesis then you need to explain why there were so many prosecutions in relation to the S&L collapses as contrasted with a paucity in relation to the 2008/2009 collapses in spite of the latter being if anything even more dramatic and systemic as compared to the overall size of the US economy, and certainly having a greater impact on overall public confidence in the banking system.

I'm not, with all due respect, going to enumerate specific criminal cases that I feel should have been brought. It's an unfair question as it could be libellous for me to do so or even prejudice potential future trials, in the (unlikely) event that any happen other than those already making their way through the courts.

Labarbapostiza

porsche959 wrote: »

I think most of this makes sense. Only element I disagree with is re Michael Lynn, he was only ever a two bit solicitor made good and never part of the elite establishment. In fact the other solicitor whose house of cards toppled around the same time as Lynn's didn't 'do a runner' was duly prosecuted and got what ranks as a fairly tough sentence by Irish white collar crime standards.
.

I shouldn't have dragged Lynn in. But he is one of the few people to end up in jail (fighting extradition). There is a bizarreness to the Thomas Byrne case (Byrne's claim that he was stealing to fund John Kelly's lavish lifestyle). Lynn may be very different in that his money manoeuvres were to finance his projects. That the mortgage fraud may have been encourage by his bankers. And with a little different timing, he might have been on NAMA's payroll, instead of a Brazillian jail cell. According to some sources, his Portuguese nickname is La Cucaracha; the Cockroach.

Mortgage fraud is essentially taking a mortgage out for one asset, but using the money to either finance another asset, or even using the money for legitimate business expenses, or not so legitimate expenses. The lavish lifestyles of the developers, breathlessly reported in rags like the Independent, may have been considered an essential marketing expense by the banks. In the same way the banks consider it essential that their mortgage brokers exude "success" and "prosperity" by dressing as if they're on their way to a wedding. I think Lynn feels he's been thrown under a bus.

Labarbapostiza

234 wrote: »

So again, if anybody can point to actual criminality which has gone unprosecuted for reasons of favouritism, then there might be an argument here. Otherwise, it's just speculation based on popular prejudice.

That's a wonderfully put argument, because if there has been no prosecution, then the accusation can be dismissed as popular prejudice. Was Harry Whelehan engaged in a conspiracy to spare Fr Brendan Smyth from prosecution.

Many of our leading politicians have been shown to be corrupt. The Catholic Church rotten with depravity and evil. That isn't popular prejudice that's the truth.

Additionally, we should remember that Drumm was in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings in the US. Completely different to financial crime.

The judge has found Drumm to be lying, in an effort to commit financial crime.

Drumm is a crook. If you can say he's never been prosecuted for a financial crime, so there's no proof. I've heard the Anglo tapes, so have hundreds of thousands of others. He turns out to be precisely the kind of degenerate that popular prejudice (you probably mean publically educated prejudice) always drew him to be. At one point on the tapes he worries over being prosecuted for market manipulation. Neither himself, nor his compadres, who were engaged up to their balls in market manipulation have been charged with such.

234

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

That's a wonderfully put argument, because if there has been no prosecution, then the accusation can be dismissed as popular prejudice. Was Harry Whelehan engaged in a conspiracy to spare Fr Brendan Smyth from prosecution.

Many of our leading politicians have been shown to be corrupt. The Catholic Church rotten with depravity and evil. That isn't popular prejudice that's the truth.

This has nothing to do with Drumm or financial crime.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The judge has found Drumm to be lying, in an effort to commit financial crime.

The judge found Drumm to be completely incredible in the context of bankruptcy proceedings, where the issues are different, the procedures are different and the burden and standard of proof are different. While it may form part of the wider picture, the fact that he lied in the context of bankruptcy proceedings doesn't automatically mean that criminal proceedings against him might succeed.

But this is getting away from your initial point, which was about the attitude that judges would take towards high profile financial crime here.

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Drumm is a crook. If you can say he's never been prosecuted for a financial crime, so there's no proof. I've heard the Anglo tapes, so have hundreds of thousands of others. He turns out to be precisely the kind of degenerate that popular prejudice (you probably mean publically educated prejudice) always drew him to be. At one point on the tapes he worries over being prosecuted for market manipulation. Neither himself, nor his compadres, who were engaged up to their balls in market manipulation have been charged with such.

First, I don't appreciate the allegations of classism. As someone who has been publicly educated their entire life I'm not going to tolerate any attempt to avoid answering arguments and make this some kind of issue about prejudice.

Secondly, yes, he may be an unappealing individual. But once again, this doesn't make him a criminal. But more importantly, it says nothing about the original point about bias in his favour. If anything, the fact that he has been so publicly exposed makes this bias even more unlikely to manifest.

So once more, what exactly is it about Claire Loftus that strikes you as not wishing to pursue financial crime where it could be?

234

porsche959 wrote: »

If that is your thesis then you need to explain why there were so many prosecutions in relation to the S&L collapses as contrasted with a paucity in relation to the 2008/2009 collapses in spite of the latter being if anything even more dramatic and systemic as compared to the overall size of the US economy, and certainly having a greater impact on overall public confidence in the banking system.

I'm not, with all due respect, going to enumerate specific criminal cases that I feel should have been brought. It's an unfair question as it could be libellous for me to do so or even prejudice potential future trials, in the (unlikely) event that any happen other than those already making their way through the courts.

Fair point re defamation.

In relation to the S&L collapse, I don't think that the assumptions underlying your point apply in relation to financial crime.

In contrast to petty crime, you can't assume a certain background baseline of criminality that could always be detected and prosecuted. In contract to most "normal" crime, the likely perpetrators of financial crime are usually highly sophisticated actors in their field and can often stay ahead of the law, or adapt so that they can engage in undesirable and morally disapprobious activity without transgressing legal boundaries.

If this were not the case, then yes, you would have to ask why there was a discrepancy in prosecutions. However, in the financial context, there are many reasons why prosecutions may not have taken place other than an unwillingness on the part of "insiders".

marienbad

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

David Drumm, a man who needs no introductions, has been denied a bankruptcy declaration by a Massachusetts court.

In his judgement, Judge Frank Bailey found Drumm was “not remotely credible”, his conduct was “fraudulent” and his court statements replete with “outright lies”.

Being not remotely credible, fraudulent, and making statements replete with outright lies, is generally considered to be within Irish Rugby Federation rules. Did Drumm make a big mistake going on the run? What would have happened in Ireland. I couldn't imagine an Irish judge questioning the integrity of such a man as Drumm.

Should he come home for his gentle slap on the hand?

He should have waited for the full grown sheep , more comfortable I would have thought ?

porsche959

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Mortgage fraud is essentially taking a mortgage out for one asset, but using the money to either finance another asset, or even using the money for legitimate business expenses, or not so legitimate expenses. The lavish lifestyles of the developers, breathlessly reported in rags like the Independent, may have been considered an essential marketing expense by the banks. In the same way the banks consider it essential that their mortgage brokers exude "success" and "prosperity" by dressing as if they're on their way to a wedding. I think Lynn feels he's been thrown under a bus.

Yeah. In 'bubble' periods I think that's true.

There was the thing in Atlanta referred to in Tom Wolfe's book "A Man in Full" about the developers calling their yachts "First Draw" as in in-joke - as in, you spend the first draw-down on the boat, partially for show and also just in case things suddenly turn bad you might as well be left with something to sell on.

Marcusm

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

According to some sources, his Portuguese nickname is La Cucaracha; the Cockroach.

Odd that the denizens of a Brazilian prison would give him a Spanish nickname - the Portuguese for cockroach is barata.

conorh91

Marcusm wrote: »

Odd that the denizens of a Brazilian prison would give him a Spanish nickname - the Portuguese for cockroach is barata.

The source for this unlikely claim appears to be Derabhail McDonald's book "Bust".

McDonald's legal affairs' columns in the Indo should be given as homework to students of the Irish legal system, to spot the errors. So this is not surprising.

Labarbapostiza

234 wrote: »

Secondly, yes, he may be an unappealing individual. But once again, this doesn't make him a criminal. But more importantly, it says nothing about the original point about bias in his favour. If anything, the fact that he has been so publicly exposed makes this bias even more unlikely to manifest.

Appealing and unappealing are matters of taste. Drumm's carry on made him very appealing to those who promoted him to CEO.

The Anglo tapes reveal Drumm to be conspiring with others to raise money through deception.

Two of his former subordinates are in fact convicted criminals; Pat Whelan and William McAteer.

So once more, what exactly is it about Claire Loftus that strikes you as
not wishing to pursue financial crime where it could be?

The absence of financial crime being pursued.

But as I understand it, our prosecutor doesn't actively engage directing resources towards investigations and arrests, as an American District Attorney would.

But what would the point be, the judge in the case of Whelan and McAteer, ruled that it would unfair to imprison them, because they were unaware that what they were doing was illegal. Risible.

If Drumm comes back to Craggy Island, if he's prosecuted, they judge will likely not give him a custodial sentence, out of fairness since Whelan and McAteer didn't do time. It wouldn't be fair to put Drumm in the clink.

Labarbapostiza

Judge Martin Nolan said of the ten men: “They were certainly good men and acting with good motives.”


?