Tribunals and Inquiries Start to Pay Off

Victor

Important article (if a little tedious) here entitled "Rich pickings as dodgers' trawl lands 110 big fish" http://home.eircom.net/news/National/story.asp?category=National&id=2 (originally from the Indo)

"If you add the amounts taken in by the Revenue Commissioners so far from the banks on DIRT, the bogus non-resident account holders, Ansbacher, NIB's scheme and tax payments relating to evidence uncovered by the Flood Tribunal, the total is around €440m. "

Makes me feel a little warmer on the inside.

bonkey

I'm wondering though, how much the costs for all of these areas will come to? I'd also like to know if the "guilty" parties in charge are being asked to pay these costs, or if the government is just happy to get its cash.

I mean - the article admits that it is unlikely all of the Annsbacher account holders will be prosecuted...that the main interest is in getting "as much" of the money back as possible.

What sort of a message is that to send? Cheat...and if we catch you, all you'll be asked to do is give as much of what you stole back as you can. Hey - you might even come out still better off having cheated....and thats only if you get caught.

Come on. Yes, 440 mill is a glimmer of light, but overall its hardly a redeeming quality.

Also, I'd like to see a breakdown. If 400m came from (say) the DIRT repayments, then the other events arent really worth including in the total, except to make them look better by inclusion.

jc

Victor

I think they got €191m (or was it £191m) from the banks for the DIRT. As this figure was calculated by sample, they couldn't impose penalties on the banks. However, now that they are chasing the individuals, they can hit them for DIRT, penalties, interest **AND** tax on the original income.

But, yes, I would feel very cosy inside altogether to see some of these guys "slopping out" in Mountjoy.

Shinji

But, yes, I would feel very cosy inside altogether to see some of these guys "slopping out" in Mountjoy.

I wouldn't. I'd feel cosy inside about them staying the hell out of mountjoy so there's a little more room for murderers, rapists, muggers, armed criminals and drug dealers.

Punish them financially and socially; fine them to the hilt, take away every bent penny they made and a few more besides, and bar them from ever holding a position in the civil service, in government or in a bank or financial institution, or on the board of a company, ever again. But keep them the hell away from the overcrowded prisons - they're not a danger to Joe and Mary Public out on the street, and putting them away just makes the revolving door swing all the faster.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
[BAs this figure was calculated by sample, they couldn't impose penalties on the banks.[/B]

You see, thats just not true.

dodging DIRT is a criminal offence. The banks, by extension, are at the very least guilty of aiding and abetting criminals.

While the fines may not be imposable on a basis where it is a percentage of the monies embezzled, there should definitely be legal scope for punishing them. They broke the law every bit as much as the people who availed of their services did.

I do, however, agree with Shinji....mostly. If our jails had enough space, I'd be all on for prison sentences, but while they are not, I would like to see those responsible handed financial and restrictive penalties, rather than prison sentences.

jc

Victor

OK, "Deco" gets 30 days for shop lifting.

Charlie Haughey still hasn't stood trial for what is prima facia corruption, obstructing tribunals, tax evasion and so on. Remember he's the guy how went looking for a half mil personally when he refused a similar amount to a trust trust fund for the Irish Haemophilia Society for members infected with HIV, about 70 of whom had died. He's also the guy who wore Charvet, while he advocated 'hair shirt' health budgets that killed hundreds of people per year.

Who deserves prison?

Originally posted by bonkey
You see, thats just not true. dodging DIRT is a criminal offence. The banks, by extension, are at the very least guilty of aiding and abetting criminals.

The Revenue collected that money administratively, not judicially, as that was considered the most cost effective was of doing it.