Irish businessman stopped from leaving China.

political analyst

Dublin businessman Richard O'Halloran has been barred from leaving China for almost 2 years because of a row about an Airbus A330 that belongs to the Irish company he works for. He believes the court, to which he gave evidence in a corruption case (he has not been charged with an offence, by the way) won't lift the exit ban until he transfers ownership of the plane to the court - which his lawyers in Ireland says would mean defaulting on an aircraft mortgage and thus breach Irish company law.

Richard, who has been stuck in Shanghai since he went there last year to represent the Irish-registered aviation-leasing firm of which he is a director, following the Chinese owner's arrest in connection to a separate company, told the Sunday Independent he was "begging for actions, not words," from Simon Coveney and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

There has been engagement, but this has been sporadic and not effective. The Department and minister have engaged with the Chinese Embassy. The phone calls and meetings take place and then absolutely nothing happens. I hope I am wrong, but there is a sense that the Government is putting matters of trade ahead of individual rights, and not being properly proactive in seeking my release.

The Department said it's very aware of this complex case and has been in regular contact with the Chinese authorities regarding Richard's return to Ireland.

In August, Richard was resuscitated after his heart stopped in a Shanghai hospital after he was found suffering a seizure, which doctors said was caused by chronic stress, in his hotel room.

I don't believe that Irish citizens back here would want their livelihoods to be thought of as being more important than Richard's life. So it doesn't make sense for our government to regard trade with China as being more important than Richard's rights.

Poor Uncle Tom

political analyst wrote: »

Dublin businessman Richard O'Halloran has been barred from leaving China for almost 2 years because of a row about an Airbus A330 that belongs to the Irish company he works for. He believes the court, to which he gave evidence in a corruption case (he has not been charged with an offence, by the way) won't lift the exit ban until he transfers ownership of the plane to the court - which his lawyers in Ireland says would mean defaulting on an aircraft mortgage and thus breach Irish company law.

Richard, who has been stuck in Shanghai since he went there last year to represent the Irish-registered aviation-leasing firm of which he is a director, following the Chinese owner's arrest in connection to a separate company, told the Sunday Independent he was "begging for actions, not words," from Simon Coveney and the Department of Foreign Affairs.



The Department said it's very aware of this complex case and has been in regular contact with the Chinese authorities regarding Richard's return to Ireland.

In August, Richard was resuscitated after his heart stopped in a Shanghai hospital after he was found suffering a seizure, which doctors said was caused by chronic stress, in his hotel room.

I don't believe that Irish citizens back here would want their livelihoods to be thought of as being more important than Richard's life. So it doesn't make sense for our government to regard trade with China as being more important than Richard's rights.

Appears to be in hand

Remember the Irish nurse Eanna O’Cochlain in the Philippines...12 years for two joints.
No one gave a monkeys either.


Surely a strongly worded letter on Tanaiste headed paper would have the CCP wondering who they're fcuking with.

biko

Not a great bunch of lads.

political analyst

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Remember the Irish nurse Eanna O’Cochlain in the Philippines...12 years for two joints.
No one gave a monkeys either.


Surely a strongly worded letter on Tanaiste headed paper would have the CCP wondering who they're fcuking with.

On that note, someone claiming to be Eanna's brother said Eanna escaped from the Phillipines.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?p=110368380

Dyr

He should convert to Islam, Eoin O' Broin would be on the next plane to Shanghai to demand his release

political analyst

Bambi wrote: »

He should convert to Islam, Eoin O' Broin would be on the next plane to Shanghai to demand his release

Except there are millions of Muslims in 're-education' or under surveillance in the north-west corner of China. :rolleyes:

whisky_galore

political analyst wrote: »

On that note, someone claiming to be Eanna's brother said Eanna escaped from the Phillipines.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?p=110368380

If you haven't got activists, lobby groups and media cheerleading your case, you got to make your own luck.

Glad he got out.

Dyr

political analyst wrote: »

Except there are millions of Muslims in 're-education' or under surveillance in the north-east corner of China. :rolleyes:

None of whom are lucky enough to have an Irish Passport to burn like the bould Ibrahim

political analyst

political analyst wrote: »

On that note, someone claiming to be Eanna's brother said Eanna escaped from the Phillipines.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?p=110368380

He should write a book and sell the film rights

KyussB

He's a director of a company implicated in fraud and illegal fundraising, a company which is withholding assets which are the product of fraud/illegality.

When you become the director of a company, you own that. Just give them the assets (the plane) which are the proceeds of that illegality/fraud, and you get to go home...

If you deliberately tie that up in a complex web of contracts that put the asset beyond reach, and try to shield it through that - then though shit, landed yourself in a trap of your own making.

Pkiernan

With Trump gone, there's no one left to stand up to CHI-NA.

This guy won't be helped by the Irish government

Mellor

political analyst wrote: »

Dublin businessman Richard O'Halloran has been barred from leaving China for almost 2 years because of a row about an Airbus A330 that belongs to the Irish company he works for.

...

Richard, who has been stuck in Shanghai since he went there last year to represent the Irish-registered aviation-leasing firm of which he is a director, following the Chinese owner's arrest in connection to a separate company,

If he is a director, it is not simply a company he works for. It's refereed to as an Irish company, bit further down refers to the Chinese owner (who was arrested).


That's some pretty basic info to get wrong. Which calls into question the entire thing tbh. It's seems pretty clear the the company or its directors where engaged in something illegal. And now their assets are being seized. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

JasonStatham

political analyst wrote: »

Dublin businessman Richard O'Halloran has been barred from leaving China for almost 2 years because of a row about an Airbus A330 that belongs to the Irish company he works for. He believes the court, to which he gave evidence in a corruption case (he has not been charged with an offence, by the way) won't lift the exit ban until he transfers ownership of the plane to the court - which his lawyers in Ireland says would mean defaulting on an aircraft mortgage and thus breach Irish company law.

Richard, who has been stuck in Shanghai since he went there last year to represent the Irish-registered aviation-leasing firm of which he is a director, following the Chinese owner's arrest in connection to a separate company, told the Sunday Independent he was "begging for actions, not words," from Simon Coveney and the Department of Foreign Affairs.



The Department said it's very aware of this complex case and has been in regular contact with the Chinese authorities regarding Richard's return to Ireland.

In August, Richard was resuscitated after his heart stopped in a Shanghai hospital after he was found suffering a seizure, which doctors said was caused by chronic stress, in his hotel room.

I don't believe that Irish citizens back here would want their livelihoods to be thought of as being more important than Richard's life. So it doesn't make sense for our government to regard trade with China as being more important than Richard's rights.

Basically the Chinese are trying to thieve it, is it?

JasonStatham

JasonStatham wrote: »

Basically the Chinese are trying to thieve it, is it?

The Chinese owner of the group raised funds illegally it seems and has been arrested. Presumably those investors are trying to get their money back. The Chinese court wants the plane to sell to refund the investors. The Irish director doesn't want to do that as it would put him on the wrong side of the law here.

Unless him or the the owner can come up with the funds he is stuck.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

The Chinese owner of the group raised funds illegally it seems and has been arrested. Presumably those investors are trying to get their money back. The Chinese court wants the plane to sell to refund the investors. The Irish director doesn't want to do that as it would put him on the wrong side of the law here.

Unless him or the the owner can come up with the funds he is stuck.

I think I'd rather be on the wrong side of the law here than in China.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think I'd rather be on the wrong side of the law here than in China.

I imagine even if he wanted to there's not much he could do. The airline with the lease might wast to hang onto it.
The bank with the mortgage won't want it handed over.

He's stuck.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I imagine even if he wanted to there's not much he could do. The airline with the lease might wast to hang onto it.
The bank with the mortgage won't want it handed over.

He's stuck.

the only bar seems to defaulting on the mortgage. Sign it over and sort it our when he gets home.

He believes the court, to which he gave evidence in a corruption case (he has not been charged with an offence, by the way) won't lift the exit ban until he transfers ownership of the plane to the court - which his lawyers in Ireland says would mean defaulting on an aircraft mortgage and thus breach Irish company law.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only bar seems to defaulting on the mortgage. Sign it over and sort it our when he gets home.

Can he do that? Would the Chinese courts be happy with a note saying IOU 1 A330 or would they want the plane on the ground in China?

I imagine if it were that easy and he were willing to do it, he would already have done it.

political analyst

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think I'd rather be on the wrong side of the law here than in China.

Try telling that to Willie McAteer! :rolleyes:

political analyst

This article was published in February.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/government-bid-to-free-irish-executive-barred-from-leaving-china-over-jet-leasing-row-38918124.html

Independent.ie understands that senior members of the Government and consular officials have been working closely with Mr O'Halloran's family in trying to secure his return to Ireland.

Mr O'Halloran, the son of a well-known Dublin architect and a relation of former taoiseach Garret FitzGerald, is not allowed to leave the country but is allowed to leave the Shanghai hotel in which he is staying.

The Chinese embassy in Ireland issued a statement to Independent.ie that named Min Jiedong as the owner of CALS and claimed that he "is suspected to have illegally collected money from Chinese public, and bought an airplane abroad. The airplane is leased to a European aviation company."

The statement from the embassy claimed that CALS had "once promised to transfer the assets and leasing revenues" to its parent company in China "but up to now… failed to do so."

At the time of Min Jiedong's detention, CALS had been in the process of buying a Boeing 737 leased to Lion Air by a Dubai company. It had paid a $2m (€1.8m) deposit loaned to it by a company connected to the Chinese businessman, financial accounts state.

The deal was abandoned after Min was detained by authorities in Shanghai and the latest accounts for the company said "the board are currently in discussion in relation to the refund of the deposit".

Companies related to Min had also loaned money to pay the $2m deposit for an earlier deal to buy an Airbus NEO leased to Finnair that CALS intended to buy from a Cayman company, according to CAL's accounts posted in the Companies Registration Office in Dublin.

vidapura

Anyone heard any more on this ?

vidapura

vidapura wrote: »

Anyone heard any more on this ?

The whole issue is very odd, any media interviews by his family are very careful not to mention or name the other directors of the Irish company why is this?, apparently the company has been dissolved and they have all gone to ground so how come his family don't mention them or are not gunning for them to sort it out?

Also, who is paying for his hotel and living costs while he is there?

Captcha

Never trust the Chinese CCP again

TheValeyard

Captcha wrote: »

Never trust the Chinese CCP again

Democratic countries should be finding ways to reduce and stop trading with these authoritarians.

TheValeyard

TheValeyard wrote: »

Democratic countries should be finding ways to reduce and stop trading with these authoritarians.

Wrong.

Democratic countries don't have a conscience.

Individuals, thinking, conscientious people should end their consumption of the products which fuel these authoritarians.

It's not about democracies or countries. It's about each and every person who takes their money and sends some of it their way.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

The Chinese owner of the group raised funds illegally it seems and has been arrested. Presumably those investors are trying to get their money back. The Chinese court wants the plane to sell to refund the investors. The Irish director doesn't want to do that as it would put him on the wrong side of the law here.

Unless him or the the owner can come up with the funds he is stuck.

I'd much rather be on the wrong side of the law here in Ireland than I would in China.

Edit..... Didn't see ohnonotgmail's post. Myself and ohnonotgmail appear to be on the one wavelength (for once).

Captcha

JayZeus wrote: »

Wrong.

Democratic countries don't have a conscience.

Individuals, thinking, conscientious people should end their consumption of the products which fuel these authoritarians.

It's not about democracies or countries. It's about each and every person who takes their money and sends some of it their way.

Problem is the CCP has artificially destroyed industries globally. For example, they subsidise their steel/aluminium, give free rent, electricity and shipping to their own state-owned companies. Undercut the entire market so nobody else can compete. Then once the global foreign business has failed or on its knees buy them up and put prices back up to what they were or more once they cornered the market. Check out British Steel group, EU tariffs on aluminium etc... They do not play fair and therefore the normal person becomes powerless. Same with other products, slave labour is difficult to compete with so then prices come down, people in other countries get poorer as we don't make as much and then always go to the cheapest products (usually made in china) but then after a few years those products are not as cheap any more... China has been distorting and destroying the world's markets. This needs a multi-country, multi-continent response.

The One Doctor

Yeah, let's declare war.

*BANG*

'Ah sh1t.'

Outkast_IRE

The One Doctor wrote: »

Yeah, let's declare war.

*BANG*

'Ah sh1t.'

China have been at economic war against the west for decades now, and we are only just starting to realise it .

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd much rather be on the wrong side of the law here in Ireland than I would in China.

Edit..... Didn't see ohnonotgmail's post. Myself and ohnonotgmail appear to be on the one wavelength (for once).

I'm as shocked as you

El Tarangu

Strange case - if I was the guy, I would just sign the plane over, and take my chances - if the plane is in China currently and they want to hang on to it, I imagine that they will keep it anyway. Already two years of his life gone; how great as a proportion of his life will he be willing to give up out of a sense of probity in his company's business dealings?

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

Strange case - if I was the guy, I would just sign the plane over, and take my chances - if the plane is in China currently and they want to hang on to it, I imagine that they will keep it anyway. Already two years of his life gone; how great as a proportion of his life will he be willing to give up out of a sense of probity in his company's business dealings?

He can't apparently because the Irish leasing company that owners the plane has been dissolved that is one of the strange bits of the case.

It looks like he is being made the fall guy for an elaborate fraud.

political analyst

mariaalice wrote: »

He can't apparently because the Irish leasing company that owners the plane has been dissolved that is one of the strange bits of the case.

It looks like he is being made the fall guy for an elaborate fraud.

But the plane has to be owned by some entity.

vidapura

Ahh I was just thinkin of his family.
Must a been a bleak Christmas for them.

And of course, now more prominent news stories have taken centre stage, so god knows when this issue will get any attention again...

A long technical article about the boss/group.
https://www.airfinancejournal.com/articles/3573676/analysis-cals-chairman-caught-up-in-chinas-p2p-clampdown#article

Seth Brundle

vidapura wrote: »

And of course, now more prominent news stories have taken centre stage, so god knows when this issue will get any attention again...

With respect, why should it get attention?
The guy has an option to return to Ireland, but chooses not to.
I don't see it requiring Dept of Foreign Affairs intervention or anything - why should it?

political analyst

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With respect, why should it get attention?
The guy has an option to return to Ireland, but chooses not to.
I don't see it requiring Dept of Foreign Affairs intervention or anything - why should it?

He can't - the Chinese court won't let him.

ohnonotgmail

political analyst wrote: »

He can't - the Chinese court won't let him.

won't lift the exit ban until he transfers ownership of the plane to the court - which his lawyers in Ireland says would mean defaulting on an aircraft mortgage and thus breach Irish company law.

as your own quote says he can get himself released from china. he choses not to.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as your own quote says he can get himself released from china. he choses not to.

Is it as simple as him opting not to transfer the plane? I wonder does he have the power to transfer over the plane?

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is it as simple as him opting not to transfer the plane? I wonder does he have the power to transfer over the plane?

the information in the OP apparently comes from his lawyers apparently.

dastardly00

Segment on Prime Time at the moment

political analyst

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as your own quote says he can get himself released from china. he choses not to.

He'd be in breach of Irish company law if he just signed the ownership of the plane away to the Chinese. If you want to know what breaching Irish company law leads to then just ask David Drumm!

Yurt2

I think an important aspect of this is the fact there was crowdfunding involved, and average Joe (average Zhou) investors lost their shirts. Chinese stock exchanges are the absolute wild west and are woefully underregulated with fraudulent and shady companies barely audited all over the place.

There was a huge plunge in shares on Chinese exchanges in 2015/2016 due to crazy speculative investments on sham companies, and it had the potential to destabilize matters politically. The judicial system has been ordered by the party to come down hard on shady financial dealings when regular folks money is involved.

The fact there is a political imperative coming down from the party to be seen to be dealing with these matters seriously (as opposed to developed financial market regulations) does not bode well for O'Halloran. Their legal system for commercial disputes is all over the place and is of course subject to political whims.

A lot of foreigners (several notable cases in Shenzhen) got in over their heads with unscrupulous Chinese business partners and are suffering the same fate as the Irishman: exit-ban with no end in sight.

It's a sad situation and I hope Simon Coveney pulls out all the stops to get him home. Now is the time to pull in political favours, Ireland has never said boo to China and there's no good reason to have him there any longer. Compared to other countries, we're actually not all that economically exposed to China, so we can afford to ruffle their feathers in this case. We're also Security Council members now, so they might take us a bit more seriously than they normally would.

ohnonotgmail

political analyst wrote: »

He'd be in breach of Irish company law if he just signed the ownership of the plane away to the Chinese. If you want to know what breaching Irish company law leads to then just ask David Drumm!

I answered the same question 3 months ago. nothing had changed since then.

Yurt2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I answered the same question 3 months ago. nothing had changed since then.

It's my understanding (this is from memory so would need to be double-checked) that he resigned from his role in the company, at the request of the Chinese court bizarrely, but still the exit ban remained in place.

ohnonotgmail

Yurt! wrote: »

I think an important aspect of this is the fact there was crowdfunding involved, and average Joe (average Zhou) investors lost their shirts. Chinese stock exchanges are the absolute wild west and are woefully underregulated with fraudulent and shady companies barely audited all over the place.

There was a huge plunge in shares on Chinese exchanges in 2015/2016 due to crazy speculative investments on sham companies, and it had the potential to destabilize matters politically. The judicial system has been ordered by the party to come down hard on shady financial dealings when regular folks money is involved.

The fact there is a political imperative coming down from the party to be seen to be dealing with these matters seriously (as opposed to developed financial market regulations) does not bode well for O'Halloran. Their legal system for commercial disputes is all over the place and is of course subject to political whims.

A lot of foreigners (several notable cases in Shenzhen) got in over their heads with unscrupulous Chinese business partners and are suffering the same fate as the Irishman: exit-ban with no end in sight.

It's a sad situation and I hope Simon Coveney pulls out all the stops to get him home. Now is the time to pull in political favours, Ireland has never said boo to China and there's no good reason to have him there any longer. Compared to other countries, we're actually not all that economically exposed to China, so we can afford to ruffle their feathers in this case. We're also Security Council members now, so they might take us a bit more seriously than they normally would.

If this guy is relying on the irish government to get him out then he should probably start learning chinese assuming he hasn't already done so.

AMKC

What the hell are wrong with the Chinese? Do they want everyone to hate then because that is where this will end up. This poor man has done nothing wrong and yet they have been holding him for 2 years.
This man actually looked chinese people and China but doing what they are is going to have the opposite effect and he will end up hating them.
China needs to let this man go now. It's a disgrace that they are holding him like this.

His poor wife and children. Must be terrible.

ohnonotgmail

AMKC wrote: »

What the hell are wrong with the Chinese? Do they want everyone to hate then because that is where this will end up. This poor man has done nothing wrong and yet they have been holding him for 2 years.
This man actually looked chinese people and China but doing what they are is going to have the opposite effect and he will end up hating them.
China needs to let this man go now. It's a disgrace that they are holding him like this.

His poor wife and children. Must be terrible.

I may have this wrong but the company he was an officer of lost millions of dollars invested by chinese people. If that is true then he possibly has done something wrong.

This man actually looked chinese people and China but doing what they are is going to have the opposite effect and he will end up hating them.

can you clarify what you meant to type here? it doesn't make much sense.

biko

"looked" probably "loved"