Anglo Tapes

Mr.Micro · 26-06-2013 05:03PM

K-9 wrote: »

One of the Indo journalists said the source wasn't disgruntled over the slow pace of the investigations, that would suggest to me it is somebody who is aware of the complexity of the investigation, how pain stakingly slow it is and probably thinks now is the opportune time to release them.

The journalist also suggested it wasn't one source, and they've got new stuff recently, as in the last week or so. I really don't get the conspiracy or political side to it. It's in the public interest that we get to hear the tapes and that's all that matters to me.

In fairness would you blame people for thinking that there was political intrigue involved in all this? The politicians were in bed with the developers that is fact, so by extrapulation and conjecture people may believe wrongly, or otherwise that political power/ influence was brought to bear. Developers were involved with Anglo as well, so its a heady mix. I personally will hope to see if an inquiry turns up anything, but more questions may be thrown up than are answered, especially with the limitations or remit of any inquiry.

View · 26-06-2013 05:04PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Then your contribution amounts to relaying the fact that there was no restructuring. Ok...I don't see the relevance. Nobody is disputing the fact that there was no restructuring.

I am responding to the simplistic line that gets dredged up in relation to parental pensions. Whatever pensions or trusts were still invested in the Irish banking system could have been managed using legislation, or buybacks, or by non inclusion of security held to maturity.

Of course the Oireachtas could have gone for such a scenario - they choose not to do so. That's their prerogative.

The Oireachtas may just have reckoned it would have been an even bigger headache to deal with.

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

I have my doubts particularly if they also faced having most of their personal pension wiped out at the same time.

Cody Pomeray · 26-06-2013 05:16PM

View wrote: »

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

... that's what we did.

We have covered everyone who presented a docket (or in reality, those who bought the dockets off fleeing pensions funds).

Instead of just covering pension funds or trusts, ideally via buybacks. The latter, or some variation thereof, would have resulted in burning interbank investors in Anglo, for example, whilst protecting pensioners.

Lbeard · 26-06-2013 07:50PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where are all the people on boards from the past few years that blamed the EU and Eurozone completely for this mess. It's quite clear that this was totally mismanaged at many levels and we were an easy mark for the con.

The argument was, in relation to the EU.....even from the early 90s........That we couldn't be trusted, and we would do precisely what we have done...............And that's what we did.

View · 26-06-2013 08:30PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

... that's what we did.

We have covered everyone who presented a docket (or in reality, those who bought the dockets off fleeing pensions funds).

Instead of just covering pension funds or trusts, ideally via buybacks. The latter, or some variation thereof, would have resulted in burning interbank investors in Anglo, for example, whilst protecting pensioners.

Not quite. We provided the funds to the banks who paid their (the banks) bond holders. That kept the banks "operational" but it meant covering all the bond holders irrespective of whether they were EU or non-EU.

Perhaps this was because the number of non-EU bond holders was believed to be very small?

Or, perhaps, the government wanted new non-EU investors to loan us money for our immediate spending needs? A significant amount of the EFSF monies loaned to us was raised from "Asian investors" (by the EFSF selling bonds to them) if I remember correctly.

Cody Pomeray · 26-06-2013 09:15PM

View wrote: »

Not quite. We provided the funds to the banks who paid their (the banks) bond holders.

You're not even keeping up with your own post history in this thread at this stage. Earlier:

View wrote: »

The Oireachtas may just have reckoned it would have been an even bigger headache to deal with.

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

Now whatever that was supposed to mean (since as it happened all the relevant securities were paid for) you appear to believe that the tax payer is covering these securities. Yet, when someone suggests that the taxpayer is already covering these securities, it's "er, well, actually the bank is paying for them.."

Ridiculous.

it meant covering all the bond holders irrespective of whether they were EU or non-EU.

I haven't raised an issue regarding EU or non EU.

I've raised pensions - for example, the buyback of pension holdings of senior Anglo securities, where absolutely necessary to safeguard pensioners' interests.

Remember, like the liability management exercise in 2010? That, and the pro note and the initial billions of capital injected into Anglo preceded the establishment of the EFSF, nevermind its arrival here. The EFSF is irrelevant, as is the EU-IMF programme that came well after a significant chunk of Irish GDP being dumped in the un-dead bank.

View · 26-06-2013 11:07PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're not even keeping up with your own post history in this thread at this stage. Earlier:

Now whatever that was supposed to mean

If you don't understand something that is your problem. It certainly wouldn't hurt for you to seek clarification rather than make assumptions.

You should be capable of distinguishing between discussion on what we could have done but didn't (i.e. just letting the banks fail and either guaranteeing or not those bonds held directly by pension trusts and funds with direct payments from the state) or what we did (provide capital to the banks which repaid all bond holders irrespective of whether they were pension related or not - i.e. the banks did the repayment).

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I haven't raised an issue regarding EU or non EU.

I've raised pensions - for example, the buyback of pension holdings of senior Anglo securities, where absolutely necessary to safeguard pensioners' interests.

Fair enough but you'll probably find the politicians weren't quite as narrowly focused when making their decisions as you. They have to deal with bond holders on a year in, year out basis and were always going to be cautious about upsetting them. They weren't interested in pursuing your favoured solution whether you like it or not.

K-9 · 27-06-2013 12:05AM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In fairness would you blame people for thinking that there was political intrigue involved in all this? The politicians were in bed with the developers that is fact, so by extrapulation and conjecture people may believe wrongly, or otherwise that political power/ influence was brought to bear. Developers were involved with Anglo as well, so its a heady mix. I personally will hope to see if an inquiry turns up anything, but more questions may be thrown up than are answered, especially with the limitations or remit of any inquiry.

It does seem a bit coincidental that this comes after the fuss over McGuinness, maybe somebody felt political in fighting was over shadowing the important stuff, but as was pointed out 3 separate groups had the tapes. I don't understand why it took 4 years to release them, that wouldn't tie in with political intrigue and trying to damage opponents, they aren't very good at it if it is the motive! As shocking as they are they'd have been even more explosive a couple of years ago.

It could well be that the Guards are finished with the tapes, all the parties involved have been interviewed so leaking them now wouldn't do any damage to the investigations.

Noreen1 · 27-06-2013 12:38AM

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, the banks cant claim to be all that clever themselves. They're plotting a criminal conspiracy on office telephones they know (or ought to know) are routinely taped. Dumb and dumber leaps to mind.

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

K-9 wrote: »

It does seem a bit coincidental that this comes after the fuss over McGuinness, maybe somebody felt political in fighting was over shadowing the important stuff, but as was pointed out 3 separate groups had the tapes. I don't understand why it took 4 years to release them, that wouldn't tie in with political intrigue and trying to damage opponents, they aren't very good at it if it is the motive! As shocking as they are they'd have been even more explosive a couple of years ago.

It could well be that the Guards are finished with the tapes, all the parties involved have been interviewed so leaking them now wouldn't do any damage to the investigations.

Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.

K-9 · 27-06-2013 12:47AM

Noreen1 wrote: »

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.

Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.[/QUOTE]

Scofflaw · 27-06-2013 12:55AM

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.

To be fair, they're obviously under a lot of stress - the jokey bravado is a little on the hysterical side. The initial Bowe-Fitzgerald exchange is a classic of its kind - each making unfunny jokes to show how cool they are under the stress, which the each in turn completely misses because they're so stressed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Noreen1 · 27-06-2013 12:58AM

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.

Possibly. As I said, it's hard to say.

Hopefully, we may find out some day, preferably after there have been some criminal convictions.

I'm off to bed - I've a 6.30 am start in the morning.

K-9 · 27-06-2013 12:59AM

Noreen1 wrote: »

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this, it's in the culture so even when in the sh*t like this, they still had to play up to the caricature.

Also, the Government was in awe at the tax revenues flowing in largely funded by the banks, they had the Galway tent, the IFSC, they had a lot to be arrogant about, rightly or wrongly, even calling the shots to the regulator.

Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.

Except we've even more tapes coming out, and even the stuff we have makes the regulators, Central Bank and Government look bad as it, not that most of us didn't know that anyway. It's intriguing to get the warts and all views from Anglo though.

Mr.Micro · 27-06-2013 01:43AM

K-9 wrote: »

Except we've even more tapes coming out, and even the stuff we have makes the regulators, Central Bank and Government look bad as it, not that most of us didn't know that anyway. It's intriguing to get the warts and all views from Anglo though.

What I find a bit surprising is it appears that the Central Bank is going through the transcripts of these tapes only now to see if breaches of regulations occurred. It begs the question why only now is the Central Bank in the frame? Surely as the regulator for some time it should have had access to this info from the outset? The tapes were with 3 other parties but not the bank? One wonders if the Central Bank is still lagging behind as it was during the time all these cowboys were screwing the country.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0626/459020-central-bank-anglo/

maninasia · 27-06-2013 03:28AM

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

Pepe LeFrits · 27-06-2013 09:41AM

And there was I thinking David Drumm delivering a speech at the Anglo Christmas party culminating in him shouting "FÚCK THE MEDIA!" into the microphone might have been an isolated event.

Arseholes.

jmayo · 27-06-2013 10:39AM

BTW can anyone answer why david drumm has not been repatriated to these shores.
Surely they can initiate some sort of extradition proceedings relating to this matter ?
I can't see an American court protecting a banker.

Or even better still how about Kenny/Gilmore asking the US for one of those flights that never went through Shannon to make a drop off the next time they are passing through.
We could do a swap for sean garland.

Worztron · 27-06-2013 10:48AM

maninasia wrote: »

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

Looks like blatant fraud alright. :mad:

Cody Pomeray · 27-06-2013 10:58AM

View wrote: »

You should be capable of distinguishing between discussion on what we could have done but didn't

The discussion related to pension funds. This is a political debate By pointing out what went on, as opposed to what users think should have gone on, you are simply being a historical echo.

Let me remind you what you said, it's important to clarify this point, because this nonsense goes on far too much:

View wrote: »

You do realise that the bond holders probably include pension funds here in Ireland? Maybe even yours or your parents?

What you said there, as I am sure you agree, is complete bullsh1t,

I have raised 4 ways in which pension assets can be separated out from the bulk of a bank's marketable liabilities. This is a very straightforward point I am making, 3 of those being suitable for emergency arrangements, i.e. capable of being engaged during the course of an unexpected restructuring event.

You need to go back over the history of the Irish financial crisis and you need to re-check your dates and facts.

Scofflaw · 27-06-2013 11:06AM

maninasia wrote: »

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

I doubt the former is in any way illegal, but the latter might constitute fraudulent trading.

The reason the former is unlikely to be illegal is because as far as I can see, it's not illegal to state a sum of money that your business needs to a bank, even knowing that the sum is less than you need, but hoping to get the bank on board bit by bit. I think that would simply be seen as a valid negotiating tactic - if you think about it, it even turns up in The Hobbit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gringo180 · 27-06-2013 11:40AM

Just a little over an hour to the protest outside the GPO better bring the rain jacket, lets hope we get a good turnout its time for the people to rise up against the corrupt!

McTigs · 27-06-2013 11:42AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I doubt the former is in any way illegal, but the latter might constitute fraudulent trading.

The reason the former is unlikely to be illegal is because as far as I can see, it's not illegal to state a sum of money that your business needs to a bank, even knowing that the sum is less than you need, but hoping to get the bank on board bit by bit. I think that would simply be seen as a valid negotiating tactic - if you think about it, it even turns up in The Hobbit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not the same as tactical negotiations a business would have with a bank, this is deception. Lying to the cenral bank about your financial status in order to lure them into a sitaution where they are compelled to support you down the road way beyond what they were led to believe was the case earlier.

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case. My view is that it's still illegal though and could be proved.

Scofflaw · 27-06-2013 11:48AM

McTigs wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not the same as tactical negotiations a business would have with a bank, this is deception. Lying to the cenral bank about your financial status in order to lure them into a sitaution where they are compelled to support you down the road way beyond what they were led to believe was the case earlier.

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case. My view is that it's still illegal though and could be proved.

I doubt it, much as it seems it ought to be - in this case, they told the CBI "we need this much right now, and we can provably cover that sum". Neary (in parody) does tell them "make sure whatever you get sorts you out", but if you think about that statement, it acknowledges that there is no contractual or legal requirement for that to be the case. The CBI is taking a risk giving them the money, and that risk is acknowledged as part of the deal by Neary. That it's taxpayers' money at stake doesn't change the parallel with any troubled business' negotiations with a bank.

If the documents they offered were true as far as they went, which seems to be the case -Anglo offered documents showing they could cover the €7bn - there will be no legal fraud here.

Where there is likely fraud is in the bank's lack of intent to repay the money, and their internal admission that the bank is in fact no longer a going concern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Floppybits · 27-06-2013 11:57AM

What these tapes highlight for me is just how inept the State was at protecting the State from people such as those on the tapes or in other such institutions. We pay our politicians and our civil servants well and what we should be demanding from them is that they have robust rules and regulations in the place to stop this carry on and they failed to do that.

Even now 5 years into this crap I feel the politicians have stilled not learned the lessons and are still letting the banks and big business call the shots in the way the rules and regulations are being setup for each of the sectors. If this is the way they were carrying on in Anglo, I can only bet that AIB and BOI were just as bad and I would love to hear those tapes as well and see Boucher especially get his come uppance.

But for me the sickening thing is the politicians feigning outrage and shock when they are the very people that facilitated this sort of behaviour with the light touch policy and also their policy of appointing their inept friends or colleague into positions such as the financial regulator and other such positions. An absolute disgrace.

Cody Pomeray · 27-06-2013 12:07PM

McTigs wrote: »

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case.

How?

There is a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud

Its versatility has led it to be called "the prosecutor's darling" in the UK: because even though the UK has standalone legislation on fraud, prosecutors still rely on this common law offence for everything from fraudulent trading to failure to disclose information to price fixing, when statutory provisions exist elsewhere. We don't have strong anti fraud legislation, but we do share this common law offence with the UK.

Prosecutors like this common law offence because its range is so vast, and because its penalties can be very harsh, and also becuase it's very simple to present toa jury, you can suggest one offence taking in everything, instead of, say, 10 statutory provisions pulled from here, there and everywhere.

I think there is some reason to believe that a prosecution will arise (in part) from these tapes. That will be despite our lacking statutory provisions in company law.

Scofflaw · 27-06-2013 12:24PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How?

There is a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud

Its versatility has led it to be called "the prosecutor's darling" in the UK: because even though the UK has standalone legislation on fraud, prosecutors still rely on this common law offence for everything from fraudulent trading to failure to disclose information to price fixing, when statutory provisions exist elsewhere. We don't have strong anti fraud legislation, but we do share this common law offence with the UK.

Prosecutors like this common law offence because its range is so vast, and because its penalties can be very harsh, and also becuase it's very simple to present toa jury, you can suggest one offence taking in everything, instead of, say, 10 statutory provisions pulled from here, there and everywhere.

I think there is some reason to believe that a prosecution will arise (in part) from these tapes. That will be despite our lacking statutory provisions in company law.

Or possibly not, because it seems we don't have that one:

December 2010

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Tighe

[2010] IESC 61

Supreme Court (Murray CJ, Denham, Hardiman JJ) 21 December 2010

Judgment delivered by Hardiman J

European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 – Correspondence – ‘Ticked box’ offences – UK Offence of Cheating the Public Revenue – Conspiracy

Facts

The surrender of the appellant was sought so that he could be prosecuted in the UK for four offences, being three counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and one count of cheating the public revenue contrary to common law. The issuing judicial authority marked “fraud” and “money laundering” in the boxes provided for categories of offence coming within Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision on the warrant, and therefore being offences in which no proof of double criminality was required (‘ticked box’ offences). The warrant also indicated that the offence of conspiracy was not covered by the marking of the boxes referred to, and therefore would require proof of double criminality.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

In the High Court ([2009] IEHC 33), Peart J held that correspondence must be established in regard to the offence of conspiracy. Under UK law conspiracy to commit an offence is provided for by s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1977. There is no such equivalent provision in this jurisdiction, but the existence of the common law offence of conspiracy here is sufficient to satisfy correspondence for conspiracy.

Held: (per Hardiman J):

1. The EAW Act of 2003 has introduced a novel system whereby a list of offences has been created where double criminality need not be found in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. Accordingly a significant amount of detail, including the nature of the offence, its classification under the law of the issuing state, the circumstances of the offence, and its penalties are required to be stated on the warrant. MJELR v. Desjatnikovs [2009] 1 IR 618 approved.

2. The offence of conspiracy to defraud the public revenue does not correspond to an offence in Ireland. The offence would be unlikely to meet the requirements of Irish law that a criminal offence be certain and specific in its definition. DPP v Cagney and Mcgrath [2008] 2 IR 3 considered, Attorney General v Hilton [2005] 2 IR 374 approved.

3. There is no general offence of conspiracy at common law, it is criminal only in the context of a specific agreement to commit a specific unlawful act.

4. It is uniquely for the issuing state to say whether and if so where in the list of actions in the Framework decision the particular offence is to be found. In the instant case, it was certified in the warrant that three of the four offences charged were within the list of criminal conduct in the framework decision, and later in the warrant, that they were not (as conspiracy was an element of the first three charges and later certified as not being within Article 2.2.) This was a serious internal conflict in the warrant. Correspondence would need to be established for the conspiracy charges, however, nothing in the warrant aimed to establish dual criminality. Correspondence on the particular charge could not have be established in any event. Attorney General v Hilton [2005] 2 IR 374 applied.

5. The fourth charge of Cheating the Public Revenue was a substantive offence which on the warrant claimed to come within the ambit of “fraud” in the list of criminal offences in article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. However the warrant failed to provide enough detail as to the circumstances in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It is also a charge which had previously been held not to correspond to an offence in this jurisdiction (see Hilton above). Accordingly surrender was also refused on this charge.

Significance of the Case

Practitioners in the EAW list will be interested to note that the very common “belt and braces” approach of issuing authorities to claim that an offence is within the Art 2.2 list of offences and also that it corresponds to an offence in this jurisdiction has been severely questioned by the Supreme Court. Where such an approach is taken, it appears that correspondence will need to be established in the warrant.

The summary of that is that we don't have a general offence of "conspiracy", and we don't have "Cheating the Public Revenue" either. The vital bits are highlighted above:

1. The offence of conspiracy to defraud the public revenue does not correspond to an offence in Ireland.

2. There is no general offence of conspiracy at common law, it is criminal only in the context of a specific agreement to commit a specific unlawful act.

The act of asking for the €7bn itself would need here to be a fraudulent act, and while it could be, in the UK, considered as "cheating the public revenue", that offence doesn't exist here. If there is no specific criminal act in the request for money by Anglo, then logically there cannot be a conspiracy to commit any such criminal act.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PlainP · 27-06-2013 12:50PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Regrettably that's the case, I think. Coming back, though, to Sand's point about proving negatives, there's never going to be such a thing as conclusive proof people like Cowen weren't involved - you can't actually prove that, ever. All you can show is that you have an explanation that doesn't require his involvement - which I think we have - and no evidence of involvement, which I think we also have.

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Scofflaw · 27-06-2013 12:54PM

PlainP wrote: »

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Well, of course he should have known that Anglo were talking to the Central Bank and Regulator. What's the relevance?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Rightwing · 27-06-2013 12:58PM

PlainP wrote: »

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

I'm stunned at the public reaction to all of this. Everyone knew that €7bln wouldn't be next or near enough.

The only thing I'm surprised at is the odd bit of humour that's coming out.

PlainP · 27-06-2013 01:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, of course he should have known that Anglo were talking to the Central Bank and Regulator. What's the relevance?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

He is saying here that the Minister and Taoiseach did know what was going on, that the Central Bank and the regulator had told them the bank was in dire straights.

Anglo Tapes

Comments