Soft sentences for the Bankers

Muahahaha

The three bankers found guilty of conspiracy to defraud to the tune of €7.2 billion were sentenced today. Two of them worked for Anglo and the other Denis Casey was CEO of Irish Life.

Judge Martin Nolan described their actions as "dishonest, deceitful and corrupt". They conspired to defraud tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of investors into believing that Anglos balance sheet was €7.2bn better than it actually was as part of the "Green Jersey agenda".

Yet they are given sentences that range from 2 years to 3.5 years. With 25% off for good behaviour theyll be out in no time.

It is of note too that Judge Martin Nolan was the exact same judge who gave the Garlic Man a 6 year sentence for a €1.6m fraud. In that case the defendant had pleaded guilty and repaid the entire €1.6m he owed to Revenue before his trial even began. He repaid the cost of his crime yet still got six years.

In this case the damage done can never be repaid. The Bankers plead innocent and put the State through a very expensive 89 day trial and at the end of it all they get off lightly with sentences of between 2 and 3.5 years. They are likely to appeal to get these sentences reduced further and will have 25% off too for good behaviour.

Sure its a great country to commit multi-billion euro conspiracy to defraud and plead innocence. Even if you get caught and then are found guilty at trial the penalty will be negligible. The clear message to other bankers now is that multi-billion fraud is a crime worth committing because the pay-offs far outweigh the drawbacks.

The bankers are unlikely to re-offend, the tax dodger will possibly do it again.

Muahahaha

Deleted User wrote: »

The bankers are unlikely to re-offend, the tax dodger will possibly do it again.

Is that you Seanie?

rgace

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The bankers are unlikely to re-offend, the tax dodger will possibly do it again.

Are you basing that on anything other than bankers renowned moral fibre?

VinLieger

The problem is the sentencing guidelines and limits for white collar crime are a joke

wait for him... he's coming.

keith16

Garlic.

darklighter

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is of note too that Judge Martin Nolan was the exact same judge who gave the Garlic Man a 6 year sentence for a €1.6m fraud. In that case the defendant had pleaded guilty and repaid the entire €1.6m he owed to Revenue before his trial even began. He repaid the cost of his crime yet still got six years.

Did 'Garlic-Man' not get his sentance reduced on appeal?

Skylinehead

darklighter wrote: »

Did 'Garlic-Man' not get his sentance reduced on appeal?

Yeah he got a 2 year sentence, for defrauding the state for 1.6m euro.

Any time there's a perceived lenient sentence, the go-to is What about Garlic Man? Like he's a paragon of virtue hard done by.

endacl

It was pointed out that none had benefitted personally from the fraud. And that Ernst &Young had signed off on the bizarre accounts.

I don't really have an opinion one way or another re the sentences, but the judge did start from a premise of 8 years each, and then took all the mitigation into consideration. And zero time suspended. It could be argued that the sentences are sufficient, given the fact that none of them benefitted personally (beyond the Celtic tiger bonuses, which every banker in the country was getting at the time), the fact that none will ever work in the industry again, the fact that it is extremely unlikely any will reoffend, and the fact that their reputations, both personal and professional, are in flitters.

Of course, this being the Internet, they should each be shot in the face with pellets of their own frozen excrement, before being torn apart by wold hounds, at which point the remaining shreds should be put on public display?

cursai

Soft sentences....Are ya mad. They'll appeal it and not do a day.

Walter H Price

To be fair its in keeping with all of the sentencing here , if you can get a slap on the wrist for rape or a suspended sentence for child abuse , what more can yo expect for white collar crime which we previously didn't even legislate against. our whole justice system is an utter disgrace.

rgace

rgace wrote: »

Are you basing that on anything other than bankers renowned moral fibre?

You think it likely they will be in charge of a bank again?

Wibbs

Walter H Price wrote: »

our whole justice system is an utter disgrace.

This. Ireland is a great country to steal, rape, kill or defraud. If you even see the inside of a court of course.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is that you Seanie?

I imagine you think there's a joke in there somewhere -

seamus

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is of note too that Judge Martin Nolan was the exact same judge who gave the Garlic Man a 6 year sentence for a €1.6m fraud. In that case the defendant had pleaded guilty and repaid the entire €1.6m he owed to Revenue before his trial even began. He repaid the cost of his crime yet still got six years.

Yes, but he defrauded the state, maliciously and deliberately And he got 2 years, not six.

The Bankers plead innocent and put the State through a very expensive 89 day trial

You cannot punish someone for pleading not guilty, regardless of whether their trial takes 89 minutes or 89 days. It's a core part of having a fair legal system.

The clear message to other bankers now is that multi-billion fraud is a crime worth committing because the pay-offs far outweigh the drawbacks.

2 to 3.5 years in Mountjoy for someone who is or was a respected professional is not easy time. If you offered me €2m to spend 2 years in there, I'd tell you go jump.
They'll walk out with nothing; no gains from their crime, no job, no prospects.
They're educated and experienced, so they'll get work. But no more six-figure salaries for these guys.

If you think that any of these guys would say it was worth it, you're off your head.

Son Of A Vidic

Muahahaha wrote: »

The clear message to other bankers now is that multi-billion fraud is a crime worth committing because the pay-offs far outweigh the drawbacks.

It's already way to late, because from Ireland to Goldman Sachs & HSBC, their 'profession' has been and always will be riddled with fraud, deception, manipulation and organised criminal enterprises.

SEPT 23 1989

Disgraceful but not unexpected

How many life sentences would these scumbags have got in the US?

HamsterFace

No one was sentenced for importing garlic, they were sentenced for personally profiting millions in tax evasion. I don't know why people are so keen to play down that crime.

Fleawuss

The litany of soft sentences continues. Bad childhood, good childhood, mitigate mitigate mitigate. Starting sentence should have been 25. Mitigate to 20. Get them out in 15. But that's too harsh. Not Irish. Punitive. Blah de ducking blah.

FalconGirl

F**kind idiot judges don't take into account the wider effects on the economy, all the people that lost their jobs as a result, families torn apart and suicides caused in part by the economic crash.

Gob****es. Sure why wouldn't it happen again? That's what really grates on me. If your a greedy sociopathic fcuk and you meander your way into the right social circles in this little island, you can absolutely run amok. There is little to stop you.

Borderfox

Judge was late for erotic massage?

Alf Stewart.

keith16 wrote: »

Garlic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttYdJRtmZJU

Bubbaclaus

Muahahaha wrote: »

The three bankers found guilty for fraud to the tune of €7.2 billion were sentenced today. Two of them worked for Anglo and the other Denis Casey was CEO of Irish Life.
It is of note too that Judge Martin Nolan was the exact same judge who gave the Garlic Man a 6 year sentence for a €1.6m fraud. In that case the defendant had pleaded guilty and repaid the entire €1.6m he owed to Revenue before his trial even began. He repaid the cost of his crime yet still got six years.

Garlic man committed mass tax evasion, which is a far more serious crime than what the Anglo three committed. Of course if you are biased you will just see the 7.2bn vs 1.6mn and raise your opinion from that.

I get the opinion from reading the comments on various websites this morning that some people actually believe they stole 7.2bn or something equally loony.

wolf9

EY must have had the juniors on that audit. Incompetent. Yera sign off it'l be grand.

Is anyone actually surprised?

Let's face it, I doubt if anyone thought they were going to be given the most severe sentence available..........

tayto lover

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

wait for him... he's coming.

Mick Wallace?

Sapphire

Meh, not one bit surprised.

Jimbob1977

wolf9 wrote: »

EY must have had the juniors on that audit. Incompetent. Yera sign off it'l be grand.

That's quite likely. Banking is a very specialised sector. Many auditors are straight out of university and wouldn't be familiar with the concepts, evidence and terminology.

I was an auditor. On my first job, I would have accepted anything.

Another flaw is that every bank was considered Blue Chip and rock solid. The partners' audit fees would be dependent on a clean audit and not rocking the boat.

Familiarity is a dangerous thing.

Arthur Anderson, the most prestigious audit practice, disappeared overnight because its Houston and Chicago offices missed the charades of Enron and Worldcom completely

tayto lover

How come the Banking Regulator was not in court as he was the watchdog who fell asleep or chose not to see what was going on?

Decent Skin

What emphasises the ludicrousy of this is another headline on the RTE website today

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0729/805755-eamon-shield-cars/

Someone defrauding billions gets half the sentence of someone defrauding a few hundred thousand! Crazy!

As for "they didn't profit personally"; think again. If Anglo has rightly gone under then their own wages would have been wiped out. So by keeping it going via fraud, they DID benefit personally.

White-collar crap is not taken seriously in this country; they're seen as a different sort of scumbag/leech. Which shouldn't be the case.

Avatar MIA

wolf9 wrote: »

EY must have had the juniors on that audit. Incompetent. Yera sign off it'l be grand.

Audits should be treated like chocolate tea pots, nice to have, but don't ever rely on it.

It's unfortunate, but that's the case.

Fiskar

Drumm should get a double digit sentence, but knowing "pat on the back" system he will probably get 5 years based on todays sentencing and it will be reduced by the time incaresarated in the US prison system.

FalconGirl

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

That's quite likely. Banking is a very specialised sector. Many auditors are straight out of university and wouldn't be familiar with the concepts, evidence and terminology.

I was an auditor. On my first job, I would have accepted anything.

Another flaw is that every bank was considered Blue Chip and rock solid. The partners' audit fees would be dependent on a clean audit and not rocking the boat.

Familiarity is a dangerous thing.

Arthur Anderson, the most prestigious audit practice, disappeared overnight because its Houston and Chicago offices missed the charades of Enron and Worldcom completely

Do auditors get audited on the threats you mentioned? Like would the engagement ever be audited to ensure the auditors are remaining independent and objective? Seems to be a gap there. As you said auditors don't like to rock the boat too much as they would likely lose out on lucrative audit clients and the subsequent provision of non audit services.

Lord knows there's been plenty of bad ones over the years.

Deise Vu

I know I will be in a quorum of one here but I actually feel sorry for Denis Casey. The Anglo pair knew their bank was rotten to the core but the PTSB was essentially OK providing people could still get their Cektic Tiger wages and every dog box in Dublin was worth 400k+ or whatever. He was told by the regulator to put on the green jersey and essentially had a gun to his head that he was likely to bring down Anglo and the dominos would follow. How many more here can honestly say they wouldn't have done some balance sheet dressing in those circumstances?
Also bear in my the crucial part of this that the regulator told the bankers to don the green jersey and help each other out but that evidence wasn't admissible to the jury for reasons that are beyond me.

Decent Skin

Deise Vu wrote: »

I know I will be in a quorum of one here but I actually feel sorry for Denis Casey. The Anglo pair knew their bank was rotten to the core but the PTSB was essentially OK providing people could still get their Cektic Tiger wages and every dog box in Dublin was worth 400k+ or whatever. He was told by the regulator to put on the green jersey and essentially had a gun to his head that he was likely to bring down Anglo and the dominos would follow. How many more here can honestly say they wouldn't have done some balance sheet dressing in those circumstances?
Also bear in my the crucial part of this that the regulator told the bankers to don the green jersey and help each other out but that evidence wasn't admissible to the jury for reasons that are beyond me.

Just because someone tells you to do something dodgy or illegal doesn't mean you have to.

He still had a choice.

Arsemageddon

I really hate these threads where people without the first clue about how our legal system works just rant.

They were caught, they were tried, they were convicted, they are going to prison. What more do ye want?

Jimbob1977

FalconGirl wrote: »

Do auditors get audited on the threats you mentioned? Like would the engagement ever be audited to ensure the auditors are remaining independent and objective? Seems to be a gap there. As you said auditors don't like to rock the boat too much as they would likely lose out on lucrative audit clients and the subsequent provision of non audit services.

Lord knows there's been plenty of bad ones over the years.

The governing body, typically the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ireland, would launch an investigation of the offending auditing firm.

But that investigation would only be triggered by a complaint or scandal. They aren't checking a random sample of good audits in Real Time.

I'm not 100% familiar with the sanctions, however I'd expect i) fines and ii) expulsions from practice are the types of penalties that the ICAI could impose.

Of course, evidence of criminality would trigger some interest from An Garda Siochana, the Central Bank, the DPP, the Stock Exchange, etc.

In many cases, the auditor would be accused of professional incompetence.... instead of a crime (unless they were in cohoots). Their integrity would be in tatters. That's what happened to Arthur Anderson overnight.

Calahonda52

Muahahaha wrote: »

The three bankers found guilty for fraud to the tune of €7.2 billion were sentenced today. Two of them worked for Anglo and the other Denis Casey was CEO of Irish Life.

Judge Martin Nolan described their actions as "dishonest, deceitful and corrupt". They defrauded tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of investors into believing that Anglos balance sheet was €7.2bn better than it actually was as part of the "Green Jersey agenda".

Yet they are given sentences that range from 2 years to 3.5 years. With 25% off for good behaviour theyll be out in no time.

It is of note too that Judge Martin Nolan was the exact same judge who gave the Garlic Man a 6 year sentence for a €1.6m fraud. In that case the defendant had pleaded guilty and repaid the entire €1.6m he owed to Revenue before his trial even began. He repaid the cost of his crime yet still got six years.

In this case the damage done from the fraud of €7.2bn can never be repaid. The Bankers plead innocent and put the State through a very expensive 89 day trial and at the end of it all they get off lightly with sentences of between 2 and 3.5 years. They are likely to appeal to get these sentences reduced further and will have 25% off too for good behaviour.

Sure its a great country to commit multi-billion euro fraud and plead innocence. Even if you get caught and then are found guilty at trial the penalty will be negligible. The clear message to other bankers now is that multi-billion fraud is a crime worth committing because the pay-offs far outweigh the drawbacks.

OP: if you had taken the time to read the case in more detail you would see that they were found guilt of conspiracy to defraud

It is not fraud and I suggest the mods edit the post to reflect that: you are accusing them of fraud on a public forum.
If the redacted one was involved, the legal action to identify you would already be in progress.

Arsemageddon

Calahonda52 wrote: »

OP: if you had taken the time to read the case in more detail you would see that they were found guilt of conspiracy to defraud

It is not fraud and I suggest the mods edit the post to reflect that: you are accusing them of fraud on a public forum.
If the redacted one was involved, the legal action to identify you would already be in progress.

Somehow I doubt the three boyos will be taking a court case about this.

Amirani

Calahonda52 wrote: »

OP: if you had taken the time to read the case in more detail you would see that they were found guilt of conspiracy to defraud

It is not fraud and I suggest the mods edit the post to reflect that: you are accusing them of fraud on a public forum.
If the redacted one was involved, the legal action to identify you would already be in progress.

Yep, 90% of posters don't seem to have the slightest idea what this case was actually about or the actions of the bankers in question.

I read the judge's full sentencing today. It was extremely well informed and well measured.

Mr. CooL ICE

Calahonda52 wrote: »

OP: if you had taken the time to read the case in more detail you would see that they were found guilt of conspiracy to defraud

It is not fraud and I suggest the mods edit the post to reflect that: you are accusing them of fraud on a public forum.
If the redacted one was involved, the legal action to identify you would already be in progress.

Yep, done.

Here is one source for proper reading.

Jayop

I'm happy enough that they were given any sort of sentence like this at all. Honestly didn't think they would.

Aongus Von Bismarck

There was an extremely unhealthy relationship between the regulatory authorities and Anglo during this period. It's extremely unfair to tar all bankers with the same brush; the majority of whom act with the utmost integrity and probity in their work.

Old Bill

If there was any real Justice these scumbags would of been put down.

Kermit.de.frog

There was about a dozen people and one judge in the small courtroom, if I was a terrorist I could have killed them all.

Arcade_Tryer

endacl wrote: »

Of course, this being the Internet, they should each be shot in the face with pellets of their own frozen excrement, before being torn apart by wold hounds, at which point the remaining shreds should be put on public display?

Like what happened to the Luas workers all over the internet and most media?

But these bankers just made a mistake and their reputations are ruined so...

They will walk back into jobs in finance in five year's time. People have short memories.

Amirani

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

There was an extremely unhealthy relationship between the regulatory authorities and Anglo during this period. It's extremely unfair to tar all bankers with the same brush; the majority of whom act with the utmost integrity and probity in their work.

The relationship between regulators and the banks was extremely unhealthy. The "green jersey" thing was very much encouraged by the CBI, likely not to the extent that these lads went, but there was definitely interbank activity promoted that wasn't based on business reasons.

The Moldy Gowl

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Like what happened to the Luas workers all over the internet and most media?

But these bankers just made a mistake and their reputations are ruined so...

They will walk back into jobs in finance in five year's time. People have short memories.

No they won't. There is yearly background checks done for any financial crimes etc done each year

smurgen

wolf9 wrote: »

EY must have had the juniors on that audit. Incompetent. Yera sign off it'l be grand.

Absolutely not.i know one of the senior auditors who signed off on the accounts.he's with a different firm now but one of the managers in our place was dealing with him last week for an audit.Imagine,everyone in dublin knows what he was involved in and going around without a bother on him.

CarrickMcJoe

Jayop wrote: »

I'm happy enough that they were given any sort of sentence like this at all. Honestly didn't think they would.

Agree, now Seanie knows what to expect in a few months. Who paid for their legal aid?