NAMA 'can't touch' developers' wives

Rebelheart · 10-10-2010 11:04AM #1

Did anybody read this story in yesterday's paper?

Despite Lenihan telling us that property developers whose debts we are now covering will not be allowed to transfer their assets into the name of family members it now seems to be the case that they can do precisely this and not be touched.

Summary: property developers will remain wealthy while the Irish taxpayer pays their massive debts.

According to that paper NAMA was created in December 2009 and only property transferred after that date will be liable to NAMA. Any property transferred before that date cannot be touched unless NAMA gets a developer declared a bankrupt. If, say, a developer is declared a bankrupt in November 2010, NAMA can go back a maximum of two years - i.e. to November 2008. This might also help explaining why Paddy McKillen is taking this action: defer the day of their own bankruptcy long enough and they will be able to keep property which they transferred within the past two years.

Other developers transfer property to wives:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/more-developers-put-wives-names-on-houses-2372886.html

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/mansfield-signed-family-mansion-over-to-wife-2372882.html

As that great Christy Moore anthem had it in the 80s: 'The owner says he's sad to see that things have got so bad but the captains of industry won't let him lose
He still drives a car and smokes his cigar And still he takes his family on a cruise, he'll never lose'. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

SeaFields · 10-10-2010 11:11AM

Yeah I saw that Seanie Fitzpatrick listed his wife as a creditor to whom he owned €50k or thereabouts so when the declared himself bankrupt she will be repaid out of his assets. FFS.

Shur FF couldn't possibly screw over all their galway tent buddies :mad:

orourkeda · 10-10-2010 11:12AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKlPKsJ2Vj0

Fuhrer · 10-10-2010 11:21AM

Cant they just send in the criminal assets bureau?

orourkeda · 10-10-2010 11:22AM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Cant they just send in the criminal assets bureau?

How can they if it's legal?

tommyboy2222 · 10-10-2010 11:27AM

Lenihan making sure his Galway tent buddies are ok.

Sure as long as we have X factor to keep us distracted why would we care ???

Sofa King Great · 10-10-2010 11:33AM

The article isn't actually correct in what it says. If NAMA bankrupt someone any transfers of assets in the previous 2 years become void and any transfers between 2 and 5 years ago are voidable if it can be shown that it was done to avoid creditors (which it was)

Oranage2 · 10-10-2010 11:33AM

this really makes my stomach turn

jdivision · 10-10-2010 11:34AM

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

galwayrush · 10-10-2010 11:57AM

I reckon this was one of the first loop holes inserted to protect FF's developer friends, FFS they were given months to arrange their affairs to protect themselves.:mad: Aw well, tough decision time, all they will do is attack the vunerable and weakest, for the good of the country for the benefit of their friends of course.

Thinking about it, next election any FF / Green person that comes to my door, i will punch them,

galwayrush · 10-10-2010 12:00PM

jdivision wrote: »

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

Yeah, god help them, worst case. they will end up like Seanie Fitz having to live off their wife's multi million pensions and investments.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

prinz · 10-10-2010 12:01PM

Any them worth touching? Eh eh eh. DWILF's.:rolleyes:

dotsman · 10-10-2010 12:23PM

Um, nothing new there. The fact is that they are just using (and abusing) a very decent law that is there for normal people.

Husbands and wives often pass assets between them, and when it comes to the family home, the other spouse will always get preference than another creditor.

This is a good thing, to prevent a family losing their home due to one of the parents being a gambler/alcoholic etc who racks up massive debts and tries to secure a mortgage on the house unknown to their partner etc.

The Waltzing Consumer · 10-10-2010 12:29PM

dotsman wrote: »

Um, nothing new there. The fact is that they are just using (and abusing) a very decent law that is there for normal people.

Husbands and wives often pass assets between them, and when it comes to the family home, the other spouse will always get preference than another creditor.

This is a good thing, to prevent a family losing their home due to one of the parents being a gambler/alcoholic etc who racks up massive debts and tries to secure a mortgage on the house unknown to their partner etc.

Well I am glad you have pointed that out, now I feel sorry for these greedy developer bastards, who have used our legal system to remain wealthy through passing assets to the wives or families. As long as the law was designed to help a gambler/alcoholic spouse, I don't mind it being used by f**ks who should be in jail

dotsman · 10-10-2010 02:44PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well I am glad you have pointed that out, now I feel sorry for these greedy developer bastards, who have used our legal system to remain wealthy through passing assets to the wives or families. As long as the law was designed to help a gambler/alcoholic spouse, I don't mind it being used by f**ks who should be in jail

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

galwayrush · 10-10-2010 02:46PM

dotsman wrote: »

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

I'd like that law changed, it's certainly works out that way here.:mad:

dotsman · 10-10-2010 02:51PM

galwayrush wrote: »

I'd like that law changed, it's certainly works out that way here.:mad:

And what would you change it to? The very same law that they are using is available to me and you.

Biggins · 10-10-2010 02:55PM

Seen that report. Yet another legal loophole that will allow those (with too many complicated conections to FF/FG) to escape from their financial responsibilities.

Yet one more disgrace to notch up on the history of our state and those in power who allowing it to happen.

galwayrush · 10-10-2010 02:59PM

dotsman wrote: »

And what would you change it to? The very same law that they are using is available to me and you.

I can't get away with fraud because i am not rich enough.I would like loopholes closed so we are all teated equally, rather than some elite super rich getting away with their crimes simply because they can afford it.

tricky D · 10-10-2010 02:59PM

dotsman wrote: »

Well, what do you want, one law for the rich and one for the poor?

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

dotsman · 10-10-2010 04:13PM

galwayrush wrote: »

I can't get away with fraud because i am not rich enough.I would like loopholes closed so we are all teated equally, rather than some elite super rich getting away with their crimes simply because they can afford it.

I agree that something needs to be done. I stated that they are abusing this law. However, What I am asking is "what should be done"? Laws regarding assets and family homes exist for a very good reason and are used by all, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. So again, I would ask, how should we amend this law to lose these loopholes?

tricky D wrote: »

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

How so? It's the same law, applied equally to everyone. In this particular case, the developers in question are using the law as an escape clause and against the spirit of the law. As above, how do you propose we change the law so that it is only applied in the cases in which it is intended?

I do want to see the law changed, and am disgusted that it is being abused in this way. But I am not going to have a knee-jerk reaction to the situation and ramble on about perceived "rich vs poor" BS. It needs to be thought out practically and changed for the better, but merely moaning about it is not going to do that.

tricky D · 10-10-2010 05:06PM

dotsman wrote: »

How so? It's the same law, applied equally to everyone. In this particular case, the developers in question are using the law as an escape clause and against the spirit of the law. As above, how do you propose we change the law so that it is only applied in the cases in which it is intended?

Poor person can't pay TV licence debt likely goes to jail
Rich person can't pay debts and goes into bankruptcy
Lawyer uses clients funds for fraudulent house purchases lives it up in Portugal

Head down to the lower criminal courts some day - it's an eye opener in relation to how much 'law' you get depends on how much you can afford.

dotsman · 10-10-2010 06:08PM

tricky D wrote: »

Poor person can't pay TV licence debt likely goes to jail
Rich person can't pay debts and goes into bankruptcy

This has to be the most mis-used example ever. You are not just comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and pencils.

The above two scenarios are completely different. A person not having a TV licence is breaking the law. They are required to have a tv licence if they wish to purchase a tv. Likewise, if they refuse to pay their debts, the debt, obtained through false pretenses, is to the state, therefore considered very badly.

Personally, I'm completely against the concept of a tv licence, but that doesn't take away from the fact it currently is the law and applies to all, both rich and poor equally. Are you also arguing that low income people should also be exempt from car insurance, speeding tickets etc.

A lot of "Rich" people you are referring to are companies. The companies can be liquidated, but unless it can be proven that the debts were built up fraudulently by specific directors, little can be done. Likewise, a "rich" person can be imprisoned for bankruptcy if it is proven that they acted irresponsibly/fraudulently.

tricky D wrote: »

Lawyer uses clients funds for fraudulent house purchases lives it up in Portugal

If you can't beat them, join them!

tricky D wrote: »

Head down to the lower criminal courts some day - it's an eye opener in relation to how much 'law' you get depends on how much you can afford.

I have been to various courts in this country. I have seen some shocking things, where time and time again repeat offenders, who clearly do not give a fcuk about society or how much they cost the taxpayers, are continuously screwing a broken system. I haven't seen anything regarding your reference to rich and poor being treated differently by the courts.

mcmoustache · 10-10-2010 08:08PM

If our justice system won't deal with these injustices, how long before the simmering resentment and frustration ends up with a developer or dirty banker getting killed by a vigilante?

I don't think we have any such tradition here but a lot of people are pissed off and getting more pissed off as they need to pay more to subsidise
the poor gambling decisions made by the wealthy. I think it's only a matter of time before a lunatic goes too far.

Maybe we should start a dead pool of bankers, politicians and developers?

galwayrush · 10-10-2010 08:23PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

If our justice system won't deal with these injustices, how long before the simmering resentment and frustration ends up with a developer or dirty banker getting killed by a vigilante?

I don't think we have any such tradition here but a lot of people are pissed off and getting more pissed off as they need to pay more to subsidise
the poor gambling decisions made by the wealthy. I think it's only a matter of time before a lunatic goes too far.

Maybe we should start a dead pool of bankers, politicians and developers?

FF made the rules, and look at the expected results. They even brought in new laws governing the ownership of guns, i wonder if the 2 are related.....:rolleyes:

oppenheimer1 · 10-10-2010 08:47PM

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

Lenihan making sure his Galway tent buddies are ok.

Sure as long as we have X factor to keep us distracted why would we care ???

galwayrush wrote: »

I reckon this was one of the first loop holes inserted to protect FF's developer friends, FFS they were given months to arrange their affairs to protect themselves.:mad: Aw well, tough decision time, all they will do is attack the vunerable and weakest, for the good of the country for the benefit of their friends of course.

Thinking about it, next election any FF / Green person that comes to my door, i will punch them,

Biggins wrote: »

Seen that report. Yet another legal loophole that will allow those (with too many complicated conections to FF/FG) to escape from their financial responsibilities.

Yet one more disgrace to notch up on the history of our state and those in power who allowing it to happen.

It isn't a case of the government protecting their friends but more a legal issue in that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Trust that rag the Irish Independent to twist the story to the populist agenda.

SEPT 23 1989 · 10-10-2010 08:58PM

Its just drip......drip.... drip

we are as a people being fcuked over in slow motion

orourkeda · 10-10-2010 09:16PM

jdivision wrote: »

Nama can't but the courts can unwind them

If so, why hasn't this been done and on what grounds could they proceed

tricky D · 11-10-2010 12:25PM

dotsman wrote: »

The above two scenarios are completely different.

Exactly. A poor person's situation is more often a crime, a rich person's is more of a dilemma.

Biggins · 11-10-2010 01:15PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It isn't a case of the government protecting their friends but more a legal issue in that it is unconstitutional to legislate retroactively.

Trust that rag the Irish Independent to twist the story to the populist agenda.

They didn't twist anything. They stated a legal fact. A legal fact that was brought in by... O'' wait... Lenihan, who is a barrister and Cowen, who is a solicitor!
They knew EXACTLY what they were doing and the ramifications and advantages within it.
...And if in the extreme likelihood that they were that stupid not to see the legal loophole (to help their friends?), they yet again, don't deserve to be running a legal office, never mind the whole state of Ireland!

...As for the developers, they know how to pass on tips to each other or what tricks to try as how to try and look humble in public. ...Change your car mate? - for example:

If you want to look a bit humbled, try a Volkswagen Golf. Sean Fitzpatrick had himself picked up in one after his overnight in Bray Garda station. As Ronald Quinlan reported recently in this paper, Bernard McNamara drove a Golf into work the day after the Commercial Court registered a €62m judgement against him over the Ringsend Glass Bottle site.

The Golf is a great bit of penance for now. If things get any worse, it might be necessary to drop down to a Polo. You might even consider a Skoda, which any taxi driver will tell you is the same car with a different badge and smaller price.

When you’re faced with the media, pour on the humility. If you feel a few tears might help, just think about the difference between a Volkswagen Golf and a helicopter.

The first thing you should do is point out that even though you are an honourable man who always pays what he owes, you aren’t going to pay what you owe because you can’t. You’re under oath, so it’s best to tell the truth. After that, let your barrister off on a few rounds of High-Court ping-pong. The rules of the game are simple – every time the court says you have to pay the impatient bastards who don’t understand how business works, you come up with a new survival plan and appeal to the Supreme Court.

You don’t need to outrun NAMA. You just need to make sure they catch other developers before you. The angry man on the street will be funnelling money into the banks for years to pay off your debts, so he will be demanding some builder-blood.
Of course NAMA will try and pay you to manage the build out of your existing development projects. Be careful about this. That money is going to go through you like prune juice and into the hands of people you owe money to. Do you really want to give them the satisfaction? Just offer to do the work for next to nothing, to help get this country back on its feet making land unaffordable one more time. Every person in the country will love you for that kind of talk.

http://patfitzpatrick.ie/developers-survival-guide/

ghostdancer · 11-10-2010 01:28PM

tricky D wrote: »

Ehhh, we already have this. We also have a third law for the lawyers which has fcuk all to do with any notion like justice and at €500+/hr.

no, we don't.

the stupidity and 'moral outrage' on boards lately is turning it into little more than Joe Duffy or The Sun, on the internet...

NAMA 'can't touch' developers' wives

Comments