nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

Arcade_Tryer

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

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

Of course there are.

They will walk into a job. Onto some board. Or into some office.

HamsterFace

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

They will walk into a job. Onto some board. Or into some office.

They can't get near a board position or any controlled function. Really they can't.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

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.

At sentencing, a judge is obliged to give credit for an early guilty plea, except in exceptional circumstances or in murder sentences. How much of a 'discount' he gives will depend on the circumstances.

At the end of the day, if you plead Not Guilty and are found guilty, you will almost always get a longer sentence, and in most people's eyes, that's a punishment.

It's even more extreme in the UK, where criminals were recently forced to pay a proportion of their costs. These charges are higher if a case is contested at trial which, it has been claimed, simply encourages people to plead guilty. The same rules also apply there as regard longer sentences for pleas of Not Guilty.

The Moldy Gowl

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Of course there are.

They will walk into a job. Onto some board. Or into some office.

Yes. There is. I'm telling you this becuase I know firsthand of the due diligence that is done for new starters and staff that are there. There is a lot.

They will not walk into any job in the finance sector, certainly not some board.
Not all bankers are corrupt.

What are you basing your knowledge of them walking into a job on?

suicide_circus

Would have liked to see a few suits done for treason re the recession.

The Moldy Gowl

suicide_circus wrote: »

Would have liked to see a few suits done for treason re the recession.

What kinda suits? Or all the suits?

Needles73

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Where on earth did you get this logic ?

Decent Skin

Arsemageddon wrote: »

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?

Appropriate sentencing. It's a common problem (bankers aside) but 2 years each for this is ridiculous.

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

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

He got six years, reduced to two on appeal so youre not comparing like for like. I am because it was Judge Martin Nolan who presided over both the garlic trial and the Anglo one today. Same judge, completely different sentencing. Nolan is well known to be an out of control judge, so much so that they had to put him on the family courts not so long ago so the public wouldnt get to hear of his judgements.

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.
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.

Judges can take an early guilty plea and co-operation with the Gardai into consideration when sentencing. These three bankers did neither and made it as difficult as possible for the State to prove their guilt, so much so that it was one of the longest running trials ever seen in the history of the State, wasting vast resources and taxpayers money when an early plea would have avoided all this. They pleaded innocence and were foud guility, do you think they should be rewarded for that or something ?

Furthermore Sean Quinn did 90 days in Mountjoy and there wasnt a bother on him. Playing dominoes and cards for three months and making a mockery of the courts by refusing to purge his contempt and feeding the judge lie and lie. He was put in the training unit at Mountjoy for his own safety which is known as cushy time, dont be surprised if this is where these three bankers end up too.

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.

Youre showing naivety now with that statement and it shows me you dont know what is actually happening on the ground if you dont think these men will go back to six figure salaries. Sean Fitzpatrick is already earning a six figure salary while he awaits his trial, he is doing consultancy work right across Dublin. In fact word on the street is that Jonny Ronan gave him an office rent free till he got back on this feet. Same situation with David Drumm when he was fighting extradition in New York, according to his bankruptcy statements he was earning a fair wedge by consulting for bankers in Manhattan. He had already made hundreds of millions for them when he was Head of Anglos New York office so bankers there couldnt give two hoots if he brought the irish economy to its knees by fraudulent activity , they only thing they care about is making money and he made tons for them over the years.

You seem to think that these bankers will be shunned in the banking community. The evidence on the ground says the complete opposite, in fact when Fitzpatrick walked into the Law Library bar after his arrest he got a standing ovation from the barristers, my own cousin and sister both witnessed this and Phoenix reported on it too. He is still welcome at Greystones golf club and plays regulary at Druids Glen too and no-one down there has shunned him either, quite the opposite- he is a hero in those circles. The only group Im aware of that has castigated him is a few old biddies in Greystones who he used to play bridge with- they chucked him out of the club. Apart from that its business as usual.

I can guarantee you when these three get out of jail they will have no problems finding a six figure salary whatsoever, its simply naive to think otherwise given the evidence that is already there.

Avatar MIA

Some here are really disappointed with the sentencing of a few years.

They were denied the joy of greater rage and chest thumping if the trio had not received a custodial sentence.