Sean Fitz arrested?

pah · 18-03-2010 6:12pm

I too am irked

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:12pm

pah wrote: »

Cyrus you've gone from someone who's only interested in facts to borderline admirer of seanie and now you're actively defending him

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

Laminations · 18-03-2010 6:14pm

Cyrus wrote: »

id suggest that you refrain from making inflammatory and defamatory comments like that

again i repeat that im not an apologist for any of the bankers, but i will be very interested to see what any of them go to jail for if anything

i have made some arguments in which holes have been picked and i have picked holes in arguments made by others

it remains to be seen who goes to jail for all of this

The second emboldened part would suggest you are an apologist for the bankers, playing the part of the defence in this debate. I'd imagine if this comes to court we'll have a similar to and fro between prosecution and defence, each poking holes in the others arguments.

IrishTonyO · 18-03-2010 6:15pm

Cyrus wrote: »

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

Having the loans was not illegal however, hiding them and not registering them as interests was

Pride Fighter · 18-03-2010 6:16pm

Firing squad is too kind for people like Fitzpatrick, Fingers and Bertie.

Death by torture for those lowlifes.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:18pm

Laminations wrote: »

True that. And I wont be happy with just Seanie going to jail, more people need to be brought to justice under this investigation.

And you are right (about me anyway), the legality or illegality of the whole thing no longer matters to me, I have a similar view towards the behaviour of Bertie Ahern. Knowing what I do, I dont need to wait for a tribunal to report or a court to rule. Their behaviour was wholly inappropriate and they should be punished for it. There is the letter of the law and then there is right and wrong. Is what Seanie did right (not legal or illegal, just right) in your eyes? It irks me when people argue that blatant wrongdoing may 'technically' not be illegal.

to be honest my interest is in the debate here, and im interested to see how it all pans out,

of course what he did was wrong, the hiding the loans, the golden circle, the il&p deposits the whole thing stinks,

all im saying is that he may not necessarily goto jail for it, the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:21pm

Laminations wrote: »

The second emboldened part would suggest you are an apologist for the bankers, playing the part of the defence in this debate. I'd imagine if this comes to court we'll have a similar to and fro between prosecution and defence, each poking holes in the others arguments.

im just taking part in the debate there needs to be some balance

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Having the loans was not illegal however, hiding them and not registering them as interests was

thats the rub tho isnt it, im not sure that it is, it was certainly reported at the time that it wasnt:

Ireland's financial regulator said: "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

Laminations · 18-03-2010 6:24pm

Cyrus wrote: »

all im saying is that he may not necessarily goto jail for it, the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong.

Well on this front I wholly agree with you. And I think unfortunately it is unlikely he will go to jail for any significant period if at all. AND if he does, the investigation shouldn't end with him being scapegoated, there are plenty of others on the board and in other banks that need the public embarrassment of being arrested (and the justice of being charged) - David Drumm and Michael Fingleton are two that spring to mind.

I think there is enough on Seanie to know that what he did was wrong AND illegal. But whether he goes to jail is anybodys guess.

pah · 18-03-2010 6:24pm

Cyrus wrote: »

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

No I don't disagree with it and TBH the loans don't really bother me it's the shifting of Billions between accounts and banks to falsify records and to deceive for the purpose of making gain that I have a problem with.

Do you disagree with me that he has deceived and made gain?

Remember my earlier post where the Act defined gain as

(b) “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not, and

Would you not agree his whole plan was to deceive and confuse in order to keep what he has? And I'm not talking about his personal finances but the balance sheets that he was responsible for? If he didn't keep up the charade though this would then have led to his own loans being questioned.

Therefore I argue that his deception was a means to an end in one sense to hold on to his loans and assets because as soon as the defecit came to light his personal finances would be under threat.

jmayo · 18-03-2010 6:25pm

Cyrus wrote: »

we can blame developers and bankers all we want, the fact is the country is running at a sizeable current deficit, i.e current expenditure is higher than current income, NAMA or no NAMA that problem would still exist,

NAMA is another royal pain in the backside, but unfortunately our problems run a lot deeper.

Re the golden circle, it could well be illegal here to advance loans to buy shares, im not sure, is there evidence that seanie was behind this himself? surely the rest of the board are involved if so?

Yes, but some of our current deficit problems stem form the fact we are loosing productive businesses becuase our banking system is defunct and as good as insolvent.
Also the current deficit of 20 odd billion a year pales in comparison to the 50 odd billion we are having to tie up in NAMA plus the 20 to 30 odd billion we have to pour into the banks as recapitalisation.
And one of the worse offenders in this is seanie Anglo. :mad:

Most commentators reckon the reason Drumm was promoted to CEO was becuase either of the other 3 long term lieutenants would not have been in the pocket of fitzpatrick.
It is very likely that seanie with very close ties to these individuals was involved in getting them to sign up to the loans for shares deal.
Oh and it might not be illegal in this tin pot country, where using your definition of insider trading those guilty of it have continued to practice their trade nevermind go to jail, but it damm well is in normal countries.

Cyrus wrote: »

where have i defended him?

One thing that strikes me is that I have never really noticed you posting on this forum before in the 3 odd years I have been on here.
Yet in one day you have been quiet prolific on this one topic.
And then you ask why people accuse you of defending him ?
All your posts have been trying to either find excuses for his behaviour or make light of his actions.

Cyrus wrote: »

if he has committed a criminal offence and is successfully prosecuted then he should go to jail.

however the man on the street wants to blame him for the countries downfall and wants to see him in jail for that, there are 100 other factors why we are in the mess we are in

no we did have the exact figures, we know the amount of the loan and we know the banks net assets from the annual reports, the net assets of the bank were 3.6bn as reported, 100m is relatively immaterial in the context of the balance sheet.

no i rarely irk myself

i had forgetten about the IL&P, but again i would suggest that this situation implicates the whole board of management of Anglo and not just seanie

Oh and as for the hundred odd reasons for our downfall, please do not mention Lehmans :mad:
True he is not the only one that should be facing serious examination as to their involvement and failures that has led to our banking system being destroyed.
That list should include neary, hurley, o'reilly, goggins, sheehy, fingelton, drumm, cowen, ahern, lenihan etc.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:28pm

pah wrote: »

No I don't disagree with it and TBH the loans don't really bother me it's the shifting of Billions between accounts and banks to falsify records and to deceive for the purpose of making gain that I have a problem with.

Do you disagree with me that he has deceived and made gain?

Remember my earlier post where the Act defined gain as

(b) “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not, and

Would you not agree his whole plan was to deceive and confuse in order to keep what he has? And I'm not talking about his personal finances but the balance sheets that he was responsible for? If he didn't keep up the charade though this would then have led to his own loans being questioned.

Therefore I argue that his deception was a means to an end in one sense to hold on to his loans and assets because as soon as the defecit came to light his personal finances would be under threat.

i was actually referring to the other post about the personal loans and i thought that your quoting of the act related to those loans too not the deposit transfer, sorry

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:29pm

jmayo wrote: »

One thing that strikes me is that I have never really noticed you posting on this forum before in the 3 odd years I have been on here.
Yet in one day you have been quiet prolific on this one topic.
And then you ask why people accuse you of defending him ?
All your posts have been trying to either find excuses for his behaviour or make light of his actions.

i have been a boards member for years and post a lot in different areas, this arrest just happened to interest me, surely im perfectly within my rights to take part in the debate

ei.sdraob · 18-03-2010 6:29pm

another datapoint

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/former-anglo-chief-fitzpatrick-arrested-by-fraud-squad-2103443.html

Over a period of eight years up to 2007, Mr Fitzpatrick, 61, temporarily transferred loans with Anglo Irish Bank to another bank before the annual report was audited.

It later emerged that the loan reached as much as €129m at one point in 2007.

there must be some laws in place about interfering with an audit, otherwise what's the point of auditing companies? sure everyone can just move money around before the accounts/audits have to be done

no harm at all

also

Earlier this month Anglo Irish Bank began legal action against Mr FitzPatrick to try to recover loans of €70m.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:31pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

another datapoint

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/former-anglo-chief-fitzpatrick-arrested-by-fraud-squad-2103443.html

there must be some laws in place about interfering with an audit

again i refer you to:

Ireland's financial regulator said: "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

Laminations · 18-03-2010 6:33pm

pah wrote: »

TBH the loans don't really bother me it's the shifting of Billions between accounts and banks to falsify records and to deceive for the purpose of making gain that I have a problem with.

The loans dont bother you? They wouldn't bother me at all if we didnt have him now saying he cant pay while still living in a gated mansion.

While Anglo can place a claim on the FitzPatrick home, if it is owned by both spouses the bank cannot take possession.

The loans held by Mr FitzPatrick are understood to be "fully recourse", which means Anglo can seek judgments against any assets it wants.
It may be more difficult to get judgments against assets outside Ireland.
Mr FitzPatrick owns a share in an oil well in Nigeria, for instance.

These elite siphoned their money into family and joint accounts and off shore assets and now the taxpayer has to foot the bill?

ei.sdraob · 18-03-2010 6:34pm

Cyrus wrote: »

again i refer you to:

Ireland's financial regulator said: "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

the regulator :cool: yes

if the regulator actually did its job Anglo wouldn't be declaring 15billion loss or for that matter there would have been no need for NAMA

Mr. Incognito · 18-03-2010 6:40pm

the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong

?????? What? Of course it does. Have you studied law?

"While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

This was in the context of the AMOUNT of the loans. It is not illegal to issue loans. The amounts were excessive. Not illegal but excessive.
The hiding of the loads is a legal matter and not for the regulator to comment on. That's a matter for the DPP. The regulator only oversees financial regulation not criminal offenses.

jmayo · 18-03-2010 6:40pm

Cyrus wrote: »

i have been a boards member for years and post a lot in different areas, this arrest just happened to interest me, surely im perfectly within my rights to take part in the debate

Yes you are perfectly entitled to do so.
But it does strike me as somewhat weird when you suddenly appear and are quiet vocal on this one topic and then claim you are not defending him or bankers ?

Cyrus wrote: »

again i refer you to:

Ireland's financial regulator said: "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

Yeah of course we all know the financial regulators have a different slant on what is right and wrong.
They definetly had difficulty with things which most of us would see as bordering on theft, like for instance banks over charging customers and taking money they are not due.

The loans held by Mr FitzPatrick are understood to be "fully recourse", which means Anglo can seek judgments against any assets it wants.
It may be more difficult to get judgments against assets outside Ireland.
Mr FitzPatrick owns a share in an oil well in Nigeria, for instance.

Maybe seanie sigend up to one of those letters from Nigeria and bought into a worthless well left to him by his long lost uncle Idi ?

Laminations · 18-03-2010 6:43pm

the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

?????? What? Of course it does. Have you studied law?

Is it wrong what he did?
Is it still wrong if he doesn't get charged, found guilty or go to jail?

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:46pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

?????? What? Of course it does. Have you studied law?

This was in the context of the AMOUNT of the loans. It is not illegal to issue loans. The amounts were excessive. Not illegal but excessive.
The hiding of the loads is a legal matter and not for the regulator to comment on. That's a matter for the DPP. The regulator only oversees financial regulation not criminal offenses.

indeed i have

of course the principal of the law is to help differentiate between right and wrong, it doesnt always deal in right and wrong,

for example anglos treatments of seanies loans is seen here by most as wrong, however at the time it was widely reported that it wasnt illegal and i would doubt that that has changed

how do you define the amounts of the loans as excessive by the way? in hindsight they are but again at the time i would imagine they were secured on assets that i was believed were worth in excess of the amounts

pah · 18-03-2010 6:49pm

Laminations wrote: »

The loans dont bother you? They wouldn't bother me at all if we didnt have him now saying he cant pay while still living in a gated mansion.

Well yeah ok, what I meant was that they didn't bother me in principle, as in before the downfall.

The facts as stated by you above do bother me.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:50pm

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you are perfectly entitled to do so.
But it does strike me as somewhat weird when you suddenly appear and are quiet vocal on this one topic and then claim you are not defending him or bankers ?

it strikes me as wierd that you have an issue with me posting,

i have an interest in the irish business world and this topic interests me

Laminations · 18-03-2010 6:53pm

Cyrus wrote: »

how do you define the amounts of the loans as excessive by the way? in hindsight they are but again at the time i would imagine they were secured on assets that i was believed were worth in excess of the amounts

Debatable. Anglos risk assessments, if anything like Irish Nationwides, may have involved little more than a nod and a wink. He is the boss, who would deny their boss a loan? The thing is, he shouldn't have been looking for a loan from his own institution.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:53pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

This was in the context of the AMOUNT of the loans. It is not illegal to issue loans. The amounts were excessive. Not illegal but excessive.
The hiding of the loads is a legal matter and not for the regulator to comment on. That's a matter for the DPP. The regulator only oversees financial regulation not criminal offenses.

im interested to hear how you define the hiding of the loans as illegal

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 6:55pm

Laminations wrote: »

Debatable. Anglos risk assessments, if anything like Irish Nationwides, may have involved a little more than a nod and a wink. He is the boss, who would deny their boss a loan? The thing is, he shouldn't have been looking for a loan from his own institution.

i agree re the risk assessment

however he was perfectly within his rights at the time to borrow from anglo

Mr. Incognito · 18-03-2010 7:00pm

ndeed i have

of course the principal of the law is to help differentiate between right and wrong, it doesnt always deal in right and wrong,

First off that statement is a contradiction. Secondly...
What? What do you think Equity is? It is about good conscious, moral dealings and is flexible to be used in conjunction with the common law. If that is not dealing in right and wrong I don't know what is.
If you don't mind me asking- what type of law did you study? Did you take a module in college in some far flung course? You don't seem to have any grasp of anything here only what is being reported in the media, the media says this and the media says that, example:

for example anglos treatments of seanies loans is seen here by most as wrong, however at the time it was widely reported that it wasnt illegal and i would doubt that that has changed

I work as a tax solicitor and deal with companies legislation every day. It's blatantly obvious to me that there a host of illegal transactions here. Just because the Indo doesn't report it for fear of libel doesn't mean that they don't exist.

im interested to hear how you define the hiding of the loans as illegal

And you say you studied law? Did you happen to sleep through company law? Directors duties- Companies Act 1963. Misleading shareholders or participators is illegal.

Cyrus · 18-03-2010 7:18pm

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

First off that statement is a contradiction. Secondly...
What? What do you think Equity is? It is about good conscious, moral dealings and is flexible to be used in conjunction with the common law. If that is not dealing in right and wrong I don't know what is.
If you don't mind me asking- what type of law did you study? Did you take a module in college in some far flung course? You don't seem to have any grasp of anything here only what is being reported in the media, the media says this and the media says that, example:

I work as a tax solicitor and deal with companies legislation every day. It's blatantly obvious to me that there a host of illegal transactions here. Just because the Indo doesn't report it for fear of libel doesn't mean that they don't exist.

And you say you studied law? Did you happen to sleep through company law? Directors duties- Companies Act 1963. Misleading shareholders or participators is illegal.

First off i will be very interested to see if he is charged with a criminal offence in hiding the loans, if that act was illegal why was he not charged when it was uncovered, surely this incident on its own was prosecutable in isolation?

secondly you are the one that said that no one has ever been prosecuted for white collar crime here, still maintain that the law is all about right and wrong?

thirdly if we are having a go at each for not knowing what we are talking about, your teaming and lading post was most confusing

finally not that its any of your business really, i studied B&L in UCD some moons ago, and im an accountant

sceptre · 18-03-2010 7:22pm

jmayo wrote: »

Yes you are perfectly entitled to do so.
But it does strike me as somewhat weird when you suddenly appear and are quiet vocal on this one topic and then claim you are not defending him or bankers ?

"New" people (heavens to betsy) come to the Politics forum all the time. Deal with the view of the "new" people if you choose but questioning their rationale for having an interest for little reason other than you think it's "somewhat weird" is personalising the discussion. And as you probably well know we don't do that. So neither do you please.

/mod

kippy · 18-03-2010 7:24pm

Cyrus,
People are obviously very emotional about the last 24 months or so, sometimes more emotional than logical and as such people want to see others punished for the perceived wrong doing that took place. Believe you me, there was wrong doing, legal, ethical and moral in the past 10 years, from the very top of our political establishment (Bertie speaking of suicide for naysayers (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0704/economy.html) to the regulators, bankers, developers and indeed even some by the man on the street.
The simple facts at the moment are that very few/no one has ever done time in this country have ever done time for such acts and that very few politicans have been caught red handed " on the take" so to speak.
Thats why when someone like Fitz gets arrested for questioning people are hopeful that at last some form of justice may be served.
I've given you three reasons why the guy is currently being questioned (who knows, there may be more reasons and indeed there may be more people to be questioned) and these three reasons all appear to be at the very very least extremely "shady" occurances which I would find hard to believe dont break some law. Hence people are "baying for blood".

I hope that there is some hard evidence against Fitz and those of his ilk who rode the tiger into the ground and for which we will all be paying for the next 10-20 or 30 years.

For me personally the chief de tat is Bertie himself. The guy sickens me and always has.
His lack of memory and absolute codswallop of fiction he spouted out at the various tribunals together with his now use of our tax payers money to swan off around the world doing book signings and speeches frankly sickens me. I dont however ever see him being brought to task for whats happened in this country. Indeed I dont see any of the other cowboys being brought to task either and this arrest may just be a smoke screen to take the heat of the Anglo losses this year.

So Cyrus, while you comments basicilly asking that people wait till the true facts emerge and that innocent until proven guilty are somewhat admirable (in that you are on your own on that) the blind facts are that Fitz presided over the biggest corporate loss in the states history and in that period some of the most shady deals in the states history took place.
He wasnt getting paid millions a year to be able to walk away without taking the hit for what happened.

Laminations · 18-03-2010 7:25pm

Although i completely disagree with Cyprus's defensive stance trying to find loopholes and reasons that Seanie shouldn't be convicted, i agree re the law and right and wrong. The law is only concerned with what can be proven. Like i asked, you like me think what Seanie did was wrong. Will your opinion change if he isn't charged or found guilty or jailed? There are plenty of things that are wrong that people get away with.

Sean Fitz arrested?

Comments