Cork Solicitors Jailed

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1363840808475049985?s=19

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40071779.html

Anyone got any more background info on these two?
Keith Flynn and Lindsey Clarke- ex solicitors
Bringing the trade into disrepute, certainly didn't distinguish themselves.

From the Twitter is seems she'd a dalliance with Fine Gael.

Iguarantee

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Anyone got any more background info on these two?

To what end?

Iguarantee

Iguarantee wrote: »

To what end?

To discuss every lurid detail of the case; to subject them to the scrutiny and criticism of Cork Boardsies; to satiate my curiosity and inform me should I happen to have a real life discussion of same with someone; that members might regale us with their jerimiads of dealing with either them...

Do ya know..., like as you'd normally do in an online discussion forum of local(*checks forum) topics...

Thanks for the input though.
I'll ensure a memo is sent your way to scope future discussions.

Hangdogroad

Not the sharpest tools in the box. From the pictures of them going into court they seem to think they're some kind of celebrities.

LapsypaCork

I felt the sentence was way too lenient for each of them given the amount of fraudulent identities used and the amount of institutes they defrauded not to mention the moral issue of taking advantage of homeless people to use their identities. It certainly raises the issue of identity theft and how easy it still is. Hope DPP appeals the sentences.

Rodney Bathgate

Why did she get a much shorter sentence?

Rodney Bathgate

Thread title a bit misleading - both had already been struck off for other reasons prior to this.

LapsypaCork

“Prosecuting Barrister Siobhan Lankford, SC, said the pair were in effect running an “identity factory”.
She said that without a guilty plea the hearing of a trial would have involved a “Herculean task” given the huge amount of documentation involved.”
Could have been, he was the mastermind and had most of the fraudulent identities. Obviously, the guilty plea saved the State a fortune in the investigation.

Vestiapx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/ex-fg-hopeful-struck-off-as-solicitor-37460344.html

There needs to be TV show made about them.

In 2018 he was caring for his sick wife.


Noting Mr Flynn has an ill wife and dependant children and Ms Clarke has a dependant child, he placed a 12-month stay on the costs order.

corks finest

Disgusting and shameful

the beer revolu

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Why did she get a much shorter sentence?

Because she's an orphan!
A 37 year old orphan!

That was actually part of the defence.

LapsypaCork

the beer revolu wrote: »

Because she's an orphan!
A 37 year old orphan!

That was actually part of the defence.

Clutching at straws there I’d say;)

corks finest

the beer revolu wrote: »

Because she's an orphan!
A 37 year old orphan!

That was actually part of the defence.

FFS

TheBoyConor

I think the sentences are fair enough. Dishonest, immoral and just bad form yes, but at the end of the day they weren't violent and they didn't do any actual harm to anybody in any tangible way. Give them a taste of prison and having it on their record, but there is nothing to be gained by imprisoning people who are not a danger to society for anything other than a token sentence. Keep the prison space for dangerous violent criminals and drug pushers who are actually dangerous to have out on the streets.

She got 2 years because there are more lenient sentences for women.
If she wanted to get off with even less should have used a trick I have seen used before - say their relationship has broken down and that now she wants to start a family/have another child and that being imprisoned at 37 would more or less take that chance away from her, therefore she should be released so that she can meet a partner to have a child with. She could argue that Bunreacht na hEireann and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights gives people the right to found a family and that the state, by imprisoning her at 37, would be effectively denying her that right, therefore they would be obliged to release her. That is something that could potentially go to the supreme court.
Another angle she could use is that she is a mother to a child and it is not fair to punish an innocent child by removing their mother and imprisoning her.

Balmed Out

The difference in sentences is because she gave birth to theur child not too long ago.

phildub

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think the sentences are fair enough. Dishonest, immoral and just bad form yes, but at the end of the day they weren't violent and they didn't do any actual harm to anybody in any tangible way. Give them a taste of prison and having it on their record, but there is nothing to be gained by imprisoning people who are not a danger to society for anything other than a token sentence. Keep the prison space for dangerous violent criminals and drug pushers who are actually dangerous to have out on the streets.

She got 2 years because there are more lenient sentences for women.
If she wanted to get off with even less should have used a trick I have seen used before - say their relationship has broken down and that now she wants to start a family/have another child and that being imprisoned at 37 would more or less take that chance away from her, therefore she should be released so that she can meet a partner to have a child with. She could argue that Bunreacht na hEireann and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights gives people the right to found a family and that the state, by imprisoning her at 37, would be effectively denying her that right, therefore they would be obliged to release her. That is something that could potentially go to the supreme court.
Another angle she could use is that she is a mother to a child and it is not fair to punish an innocent child by removing their mother and imprisoning her.

Not to go off topic but that matter has already been dealt with in the case of Murray where a married couple were jailed for life for capital murder and they argued that they should be bailed to allow them to start a family. Their case was denied due to the right not being an absolute right

tdf7187

I worked in banking and came across and investigated this type of thing (professionals running ID and loan fraud factories, essentially). There were at least half-a-dozen people involved, one of who had an FF connection, and they were never prosecuted, in spite of detailed reports and numerous meetings with AGS.

I guess my reaction to the case is that it's the tip of an iceberg. Many similar frauds never reach the courts.

TheBoyConor

Dammit.

Well in the Murray case then, well it is different in that they were violent criminals who committed capital murder no less.
I wonder could the same argument be used to get you off a custodial sentence for petty and non-violent crime like these two?

If she has a young child then that is her trump card for getting out of jail. The courts have to prioritise what is in the best interests of the child. Jailing a young child's mother for 2 years for a non-violent and essentially victimless crime is of no benefit to anybody and punishes the child more than the mother. I am actually against imprisoning mothers except in the most severe cases of violent behaviour that has not responded to repeated attempts at intervention.

phildub

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Dammit.

Well in the Murray case then, well it is different in that they were violent criminals who committed capital murder no less.
I wonder could the same argument be used to get you off a custodial sentence for petty and non-violent crime like these two?

If she has a young child then that is her trump card for getting out of jail. The courts have to prioritise what is in the best interests of the child. Jailing a young child's mother for 2 years for a non-violent and essentially victimless crime is of no benefit to anybody and punishes the child more than the mother. I am actually against imprisoning mothers except in the most severe cases of violent behaviour that has not responded to repeated attempts at intervention.

It might be worth a trip to the Supreme Court, only in these current times she will most likely be released before her case is heard. She got 2 years so 1.5 years with remission and they will probably let her out before that with good behavior, if she appeals she won't be entitled to early release so it will be interesting to see if she decides to appeal

TheBoyConor

I'd love if they could plan an escape. It would be an excellent follow up chapter. I think in the womens prison, it would probably be much easier to escape.

Actually, can you be further prosectued and get a longer sentence if you try to excape from prison? I thought there was something about not being further penalised for attempting to escape prison (provided it was a non-violent attempt) because it is only natural for a person to seek their freedom.

DonalK1981

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think the sentences are fair enough. Dishonest, immoral and just bad form yes, but at the end of the day they weren't violent and they didn't do any actual harm to anybody in any tangible way. Give them a taste of prison and having it on their record, but there is nothing to be gained by imprisoning people who are not a danger to society for anything other than a token sentence. Keep the prison space for dangerous violent criminals and drug pushers who are actually dangerous to have out on the streets.

Like the garlic importer?

So it works out you get paid about 100k for a year in prison.. I'm not seeing the punishment there. If you offered me 100k, I'd happily wander into mountjoy for a year.

the beer revolu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So it works out you get paid about 100k for a year in prison.. I'm not seeing the punishment there. If you offered me 100k, I'd happily wander into mountjoy for a year.

Eh? What?
My gut tells me there are no facts in the above statement.

Care to back up this claim?
And please don't quote the cost to the state of incarceration.

Edit. A brief search tells me a prisoner is paid approx €620 per year. A tad less than €100k

TheBoyConor

KKV means that they ripped off institutions for €400k so that if they still had it and went to prison, they would still have that to look forward to when they got out, averaging 100k a year.

However, KKV forgets that the money was taken back off them and given back to the banks.

They should have been a bit cuter and taken the money out in cash and stored it. Who cares about inflation when it is all robbed and money for jam anyway. When challenged where it went, just say "oh, i have a gambling problem" and you are away with it.

Come out of jail in 2 years and dig up your barrell of cash from whatever place you buried it.

the beer revolu

TheBoyConor wrote: »

KKV means that they ripped off institutions for €400k so that if they still had it and went to prison, they would still have that to look forward to when they got out, averaging 100k a year.

However, KKV forgets that the money was taken back off them and given back to the banks.

They should have been a bit cuter and taken the money out in cash and stored it. Who cares about inflation when it is all robbed and money for jam anyway. When challenged where it went, just say "oh, i have a gambling problem" and you are away with it.

Come out of jail in 2 years and dig up your barrell of cash from whatever place you buried it.

Ah right,
. I think only around €100k was recovered - around €400k wasn't recovered but I suspect that that money is gone.

Also, yeah. 4 years in prison would be great craic, altogether. Sure it's just like a hotel. Blah blah blah

antimatterx

He got 4 years and she got 2 years due to a difference in their circumstances.

Were the differences their respective genders?

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Thread title a bit misleading - both had already been struck off for other reasons prior to this.

Are they still "qualified solicitors", just barred from "practising as solicitors"?
Apologies if you were misled, although its hardly being confused with another contemporary thread about actual solicitors getting prison.

Good article on Examiner. Unlucky to be caught it seems, but I wonder how much they really trousered

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40231541.html

TheBoyConor

antimatterx wrote: »

He got 4 years and she got 2 years due to a difference in their circumstances.

Were the differences their respective genders?

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

the beer revolu

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

While I can see where you are coming from isn't there a danger of setting a precident where if you are the mother of a child you will not be punished for extensive, organised fraud?
Criminals could recruit women with children to carry out fraud.

Patrick2010

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

Yes, women with children should of course be free to commit as much crime as they want without going to prison as long as its non-violent. This includes serial shoplifters and fraudsters like the woman in this case.

TheBoyConor

Possibly. But at the end of the day if they can't recruit women with families do to their bidding, they will just find some other way of doing it. And even if they do get women, while the women will get off with a slap on the wrist, the ringleaders at the top will get the usual punishments for their leading and organising role in the scams, and possibly also face punishment for recruiting women.

Someone I know was pregnant and decided to make the most of her condition by going on a relentless campaign of daily high-end shoplifting, knowing that even if she did get caught, the courts would be very reluctant to send a pregnant woman who already has a toddler to prison. As it turned out, she did eventually get apprehended she got a custodial sentence but it was hugely curtailed and she only served a few weeks before coming out again. As soon as she was out it was back to the high fashion shop lifting. Stuff was being stolen to order and even tried selling items to people working in the probation.
Absolutely blatant, brazen and shameless theft resulting in good money for a few hours in town, safe in the knowledge she wouldn't face anything more than a slap on the wrist. And the thing about it is, she isn't a typical druggie scumbag at all. A pleasant and intelligent woman, kind mother, looks after herself well, dresses nice, but this is her way of earning extra. The occasional stint in jail is just a part of the routine when things go against her. Even then she is taking orders and lining up what items must be located, security sussed out and then robbed for when she gets out. If you passed her on the street you would never think she was a career criminal. And her normal, unassuming appearance and demeanour is part of it too - she doesn't look like a typical petty criminal. But you could leave your phone, wallet on the table and she would never touch it. She wouldn't rob from a person - only against the likes of department stores and high end chains. As she recognises, they account for losses and thefts in their accounting anyway, so it is not even a victimless crime in her eyes, it is just part of business and she is fulfilling a role that the corporations know exists and they account for it. I admire the steely attitude.

corks finest

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Possibly. But at the end of the day if they can't recruit women with families do to their bidding, they will just find some other way of doing it. And even if they do get women, while the women will get off with a slap on the wrist, the ringleaders at the top will get the usual punishments for their leading and organising role in the scams, and possibly also face punishment for recruiting women.

Someone I know was pregnant and decided to make the most of her condition by going on a relentless campaign of daily high-end shoplifting, knowing that even if she did get caught, the courts would be very reluctant to send a pregnant woman who already has a toddler to prison. As it turned out, she did eventually get apprehended she got a custodial sentence but it was hugely curtailed and she only served a few weeks before coming out again. As soon as she was out it was back to the high fashion shop lifting. Stuff was being stolen to order and even tried selling items to people working in the probation.
Absolutely blatant, brazen and shameless theft resulting in good money for a few hours in town, safe in the knowledge she wouldn't face anything more than a slap on the wrist. And the thing about it is, she isn't a typical druggie scumbag at all. A pleasant and intelligent woman, kind mother, looks after herself well, dresses nice, but this is her way of earning extra. The occasional stint in jail is just a part of the routine when things go against her. Even then she is taking orders and lining up what items must be located, security sussed out and then robbed for when she gets out. If you passed her on the street you would never think she was a career criminal. And her normal, unassuming appearance and demeanour is part of it too - she doesn't look like a typical petty criminal. But you could leave your phone, wallet on the table and she would never touch it. She wouldn't rob from a person - only against the likes of department stores and high end chains. As she recognises, they account for losses and thefts in their accounting anyway, so it is not even a victimless crime in her eyes, it is just part of business and she is fulfilling a role that the corporations know exists and they account for it. I admire the steely attitude.

Both should have thought of the end result if caught,
Were they thinking of the poor ***** they used? No
As they were insignificant street ppl their privelaged eyes, bring quite honest I wished the ****ers got more time ,I'd a kid brother who overdosed on the streets and died in mcdonald's jacks Daunt sq and it maddens me that ppl like those 2 were using ppl like him who had nothing left not even their dignity

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

victimless crimes.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

You should do stand-up.

silver2020

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

From the Twitter is seems she'd a dalliance with Fine Gael.

corks finest wrote: »

FG connections

Imagine if you checked the background of every convicted criminal for possible political "dalliances"

It would have SF/IRA leading all the other parties put together by multiples of multiples.

fryup

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Thread title a bit misleading - both had already been struck off for other reasons prior to this.

and what were those other reasons?? (can't be arsed googling)

btw- did they run a legal firm together or did they work for a firm?

TheBoyConor

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags. I am actually just a bit disappointed that the money was located and given back. I wish they had got the money in cash and hidden it somewhere before the were caught and then claimed they gambled it or something.

The only institution I would have any sympathy for is the credit unions. I don't approve of that. But the banks - fúck the banks. €400k isn't pissing money for them. Bravo.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

i didn't realise they allowed internet in prison

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags. I am actually just a bit disappointed that the money was located and given back. I wish they had got the money in cash and hidden it somewhere before the were caught and then claimed they gambled it or something.

The only institution I would have any sympathy for is the credit unions. I don't approve of that. But the banks - fúck the banks. €400k isn't pissing money for them. Bravo.

Ah here.
Sure if we all ripped off the banks because "they rode the hole off the country", we'd have some basketcase of an economy.

Someone, somewhere pays for a "victimless crime", usually through increased premiums to offset fraud, which are passed on as charges to the rest of us.

Thus isn't Robin Hood stuff.

POBox19

Quoting from the Examiner:
“AIB never missed it. We might give the AIB money to charity. They didn’t know what they gave out, they didn’t miss it. If they want it back, they should come to court (on Friday). At some stage AIB are going to have to stop losing money.
“We are used to financial institutions making honest efforts to bankrupt themselves. AIB did so on three separate occasions. It is not something we should be surprised at… We the people of Ireland have no reason to believe the AIB will ever cop themselves on because we will bail them out. History speaks for itself,” Judge Ó Donnabháin said.

AIB must be the bank where slow learners go for the safe jobs. Looks like you can rock up to any branch with a bit of dodgy id and help yourself to a fist full of cash, they won't miss it.

fryup

seems BOI are the hero's in this case

fryup

fryup wrote: »

seems BOI are the hero's in this case

Fair play to your man that copped it.
(Alan Boland)

It would make a great film!

fryup

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

It would make a great film!

or Primetime special, fingers crossed

Guy:Incognito

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

Should a woman with a small child to take car of not be more incentivised by having said child to not commit crime and risk the child being punished for her actions?


Much like this thing of people who need their cars for work getting reduced or no real punishment when they go to court for things like drink driving. They should have ****ing thought of how much they rely on the car to earn a living.

mike_cork

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

Sorry,but that is the one of the worst takes I've ever seen.
Just because you have a child, it doesn't give you carte blanche regarding the law/committing crime.

saabsaab

tdf7187 wrote: »

I worked in banking and came across and investigated this type of thing (professionals running ID and loan fraud factories, essentially). There were at least half-a-dozen people involved, one of who had an FF connection, and they were never prosecuted, in spite of detailed reports and numerous meetings with AGS.

I guess my reaction to the case is that it's the tip of an iceberg. Many similar frauds never reach the courts.

Yes you have to wonder how much never gets that far. I've head stories of fraud being quietly dealt with outside of the law so as not to embarrass the financial institution involved.

Apart from the cash that was recovered can any assets be sold off to retrieve the money? Is it possible that they've invested some of it and will still have it when they're released?

TheBoyConor

mike_cork wrote: »

Sorry,but that is the one of the worst takes I've ever seen.
Just because you have a child, it doesn't give you carte blanche regarding the law/committing crime.

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

You've no idea what those people went through. How many times were they arrested and grilled over missing payments and outstanding debts? How much of a beating has their right to a good name taken by these upstanding young citizens?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags.

You
Me
Everyone on Boards
And everyone else in the entire fcuking country who has to foot the bill for these snakes. But, yeah, sure, the banks rabble rabble rabble.

It is also extremely ironic that you're slating the banks for what they did while not giving a bollocks about 'de homeliss' in the same breath.

mike_cork

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

I'd really have to disagree with that tbh. You can't have a system where women with children are given preference over others. She committed a serious crime,she deserves jail.
I understand there's an innocent child involved but there has to be repercussions for a serious crime such as fraud.

Also just because it's the banks who were defrauded here....It doesnt make it any less of a crime.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

That flies in the face of justice though.

A pregnant woman (or even a woman who may become pregnant) can do what they like as long as its not serious?

Naaa, not buying it.

Most people aren't going on crime sprees, whether pregnant or not, male or female.

TheBoyConor

mike_cork wrote: »

I'd really have to disagree with that tbh. You can't have a system where women with children are given preference over others. She committed a serious crime,she deserves jail.
I understand there's an innocent child involved but there has to be repercussions for a serious crime such as fraud.

Also just because it's the banks who were defrauded here....It doesnt make it any less of a crime.

We already have a system like that sure. Women get vastly more lenient sentences for the same crime. And they have a way easier time in prison and get released way quicker. There is plenty evidence for that.

She committed a crime, but realistically it is not a serious crime. No-body died or was injured or harmed in any way, and no distress or fear was caused to anybody. No animals were hurt. Sure AIB were so absolutely clueless they didn't even know money was missing!!!

There ought to be some repercussions, yes, but I don't think it is fair on the child that they would be separated from their mother because of their mothers actions. The child will have no concept or understanding of why their mother was taken away. That will be very traumatic for them. You can't seriously suggest that it is appropriate for trauma to be intentionally caused to a child, directly or indirectly, over something that their mother did? Can you?

There are consequences for the woman without a custodial sentence. She is out there now for all to see as being a cheat and a fraudster. She will be dispised in much of the community. Even that will have some knock on carry over to her child and family.

I think she should be named and shamed and given a fine and a suspended sentence. If jail time has to be done, let him do it.