Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anglo Tapes

1121315171825

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 311 ✭✭Lbeard


    GSF wrote: »
    Most hilarious bit so far has been Anglo's management team promising to bring "good governance" to Irish Nationwide. True comedy gold.

    Comedy gold is the "fast and lose lending to every cowboy in town" tape. Drumm and Bowe, talking how Bank of Ireland can't figure out why their share price is getting hammered. At the end of the call Bowe says "They think they've been the sensible bankers and the market just doesn't get it", and Drumm says, with some laughs in the background "Well I know differently"

    They all knew they were lending in to every cowboy in town.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    antoobrien wrote: »
    More likely a lack of the tapes showing any actual criminal acts.
    Well that point's already been gone through at length, and I disagree.

    However, I'm replying to the fact that people are criticizing the media as having deliberately scuppered a trial based on the publicity of evidence. This appears to be an unfounded concern. A judge considering that argument would have to look back at recent cases where pre trial publicity was raised, and where previous judges have tended to be dismissive.

    Our situation is different to the UK, where people are more sensitive and trials do collapse, maybe that's where the idea is coming from.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Well that point's already been gone through at length, and I disagree.

    However, I'm replying to the fact that people are criticizing the media as having deliberately scuppered a trial based on the publicity of evidence. This appears to be an unfounded concern. A judge considering that argument would have to look back at recent cases where pre trial publicity was raised, and where previous judges have tended to be dismissive.

    Our situation is different in the UK, where people are more sensitive and trials do collapse, maybe that's where the idea is coming from.

    In that we allow kangaroo justice, sure the situation is very different.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,654 ✭✭✭Noreen1


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Oh it gets better, the indo have made sure that nobody from Anglo will ever see jail because there's no way they can get a fair trial now.
    Floppybits wrote: »
    This is the thing that bothers me about an oireachtas investigating the banks is that we dont know what interests the politcians had in these banking institutions. It is all well and good that the Indo are releasing the Anglo tapes giving us an insight into the attitude of the bankers but what we dont have is what interests the politicians and political parties had in this institutions and based on these interests where decisions made to just protect them at the cost of the Irish taxpayer?

    It is time for the ploiticians and political parties to come clean over their interests in the banks, if they do this then we might be able to have an oireachtas enquiry but if we dont have that then how can we trust the politicians not to hide the evidence of where they took decisions to protect themselves at our cost.
    I don't know where people get this idea. The courts in this country don't have a record of staying criminal trials because of adverse publicity. Public outrage simply doesn't stop criminal trials from proceeding.

    There is some evidence that courts are more sensitive to political intervention prejudicing a trial, in which case the courts might adjourn a trial to allow the 'fade factor'. But the fear about publicity ruining everything seems to have come from absolutely nowhere.

    The opinion of the former DPP:

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/oireachtas-probe-before-criminal-trials-foolish-235548.html
    Oireachtas probe before criminal trials ‘foolish’

    Monday, July 01, 2013
    By Shaun Connolly
    Holding an Oireachtas probe into the banking collapse before criminal trials take place would be “foolish”, former DPP James Hamilton has warned.
    The respected legal figure said evidence given to the planned Leinster House probe could be used by those accused of criminal offences to claim they could not get a fair trial.

    “The big difficulty, of course, is that if you do have an inquiry coming closely in advance of a trial, you will very much strengthen the argument of defendants that the atmosphere is such that they cannot receive a fair trial,” he told RTÉ.

    “In other words, the type of application which Mr Haughey successfully made to delay his own trial from taking place many years ago.

    “If we’re talking now about trials taking place next year, I think it would be very foolish to embark on a major inquiry before those trials take place. I think it would be much more to the point if steps were taken to do everything that can be done to expedite those trials taking place and then hold the inquiry.”
    Why, oh why, do our Politicians keep wittering on about an enquiry?
    Have they even asked the advice of the current DPP?

    Or is there another reason for their insistence on planning an enquiry that no-one wants as badly as prosecutions?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Noreen1 wrote: »
    The opinion of the former DPP:
    And he's completely right. The only time judges seem to get nervous about the prejudicing of trials, it's when politicians get involved.

    Everyone looks back on Haughey and think Haughey's prosecution collapsed because of publicity. Actually, it was because of the comments of Mary Harney.

    George Redmond made the same argument about publicity, and the High court was having none of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 839 ✭✭✭Dampintheattic


    And he's completely right. The only time judges seem to get nervous about the prejudicing of trials, it's when politicians get involved.

    Everyone looks back on Haughey and think Haughey's prosecution collapsed because of publicity. Actually, it was because of the comments of Mary Harney.

    George Redmond made the same argument about publicity, and the High court was having none of it.

    Speaking of which, (Mary Harney), where is the lady now?
    What does she have to say for herself?
    Mary of the "let the markets decide", policy!
    Mary of the FAS hairdo, over in USA, at our expense!
    Why isn't the media, calling her up for an explaination into what happened in government during the PD time(s) in there?
    Were'nt they (PD's) going to keep the Fianna Failures, honest!!!:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,049 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    Speaking of which, (Mary Harney), where is the lady now?
    What does she have to say for herself?
    Mary of the "let the markets decide", policy!
    Mary of the FAS hairdo, over in USA, at our expense!
    Why isn't the media, calling her up for an explaination into what happened in government during the PD time(s) in there?
    Were'nt they (PD's) going to keep the Fianna Failures, honest!!!:rolleyes:

    She will just give the same excuse as Bertie when asked, "Sure the ecomnoy and the country's account was in good health when it was handed over" and she will waddle off into the sunset.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    antoobrien wrote: »
    In that we allow kangaroo justice, sure the situation is very different.

    How so? There has been widespread media coverage of our banking masterminds but it's not as if any of them have been imprisoned on the back of that. If they are brought to court and face a trial the law will be well explained to a jury and any evidence already in the public domain will be given context within the parameters of a trial. The content of the tapes so far has nothing that would prevent a fair trial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    john.han wrote: »
    How so? There has been widespread media coverage of our banking masterminds but it's not as if any of them have been imprisoned on the back of that.

    Point out what they have done wrong, not morally (that is a subjective concept, much like charging interest under sharia banking is illegal, so has no place in this discussion) but legally.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Point out what they have done wrong, not morally (that is a subjective concept, much like charging interest under sharia banking is illegal, so has no place in this discussion) but legally.
    Conspiracy to defraud?

    I don't personally want to get into this again. But denying that there could be any illegality here is plainly ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    To be fair, what the government can do is political - they cannot make criminal prosecutions happen, thank God, and nobody should wish for them to be able to do any such thing.

    They should have no involvement in Garda investigations beyond the kind of thing Shatter offered to do 2 years ago, which was to give the fraud squad more manpower.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    The hands off approach lets people get away with it through sheer ineptness and a lack of prioritisafion. Sometimes the public want and demand justice. Sometimes you have to choose what is important to pursue. I believe this is also why we elect governments. Every four years we can choose another government and they should follow the wishes of the voters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Conspiracy to defraud?

    Fraud is notoriously hard to prove here, good luck with that. Personally I'd hoped that a few would get done for falsifying accounts (which should be provable) but not after this.
    I don't personally want to get into this again. But denying that there could be any illegality here is plainly ridiculous.

    I'm not denying it, I'm interested in finding out how many of the beat the bankers brigade have the first clue over what is illegal or not. I'd like to see how the charge of "running a company into the ground" can be made stick.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Point out what they have done wrong, not morally (that is a subjective concept, much like charging interest under sharia banking is illegal, so has no place in this discussion) but legally.

    You claimed we have kangaroo justice, back that up please. As for potential crimes as Cody said Conspiracy to commit fraud, if they induced the state to bail them out (by lowballing what was needed) but hid the true cost of such a bailout knowing the state would not have helped if they had known the actual cost, then that should go before a judge and jury. At one point you are saying the indo have prejudiced a potential trial and now you are saying there shouldn't be a trial as you can't see a crime. Make your mind up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    antoobrien wrote: »

    I'm not denying it, I'm interested in finding out how many of the beat the bankers brigade have the first clue over what is illegal or not. I'd like to see how the charge of "running a company into the ground" can be made stick.

    You are making it fairly clear you don't know much about the law, there is plenty in the companies acts that set out circumstances where companies are run into the ground can be criminal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭maninasia


    john.han wrote: »
    You claimed we have kangaroo justice, back that up please. As for potential crimes as Cody said Conspiracy to commit fraud, if they induced the state to bail them out (by lowballing what was needed) but hid the true cost of such a bailout knowing the state would not have helped if they had known the actual cost, then that should go before a judge and jury. At one point you are saying the indo have prejudiced a potential trial and now you are saying there shouldn't be a trial as you can't see a crime. Make your mind up.

    What part of 7 billion euro bridging loan from the Irish government that 'will never be paid back' do people not understand.

    This needs to be dealt with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    john.han wrote: »
    You are making it fairly clear you don't know much about the law, there is plenty in the companies acts that set out circumstances where companies are run into the ground can be criminal.

    just like there are plenty of grounds for fraud, how often is there a conviction?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    antoobrien wrote: »
    just like there are plenty of grounds for fraud, how often is there a conviction?

    What? So because we rarely convict this type of criminal we should ignore the laws that exist both in statute and precedent? You are making less and less sense, any update on that kangaroo justice remark?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    john.han wrote: »
    You claimed we have kangaroo justice, back that up please.

    Anything to do with Dennis O'Brien (much as I personally dislike him) is prejudiced because of his association with Lowry and the doubts many people still have over the East license.

    john.han wrote: »
    As for potential crimes as Cody said Conspiracy to commit fraud, if they induced the state to bail them out (by lowballing what was needed) but hid the true cost of such a bailout knowing the state would not have helped if they had known the actual cost, then that should go before a judge and jury.

    Waste of time claiming they lowballed it, because the simple fact of the matter is that they didn't know how much it would cost (I'm waiting to see if they were stupid enough to have that conversation on a phone). They tried to take the bare minimum and this strategy failed.

    john.han wrote: »
    At one point you are saying the indo have prejudiced a potential trial and now you are saying there shouldn't be a trial as you can't see a crime. Make your mind up.

    Make your mind up implies that the concepts are mutually exclusive, which they are not. The indo can have f**ked things up independently of whether or not anything illegal was done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    antoobrien wrote: »
    just like there are plenty of grounds for fraud, how often is there a conviction?

    Well in fairness such a degree of pessimism will guarantee that remains the case. I would guess there was major fraud with all the banks. Such vast sums of money that were needed to bail them out did not just arise out of bad loans?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    antoobrien wrote: »
    More likely a lack of the tapes showing any actual criminal acts.

    I'm quite sure a competent lawyer could find plenty to charge these guys with.

    I don't profess to be an expert, but the word "fraud" certainly comes to mind.

    For example, section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001 states:
    "A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence".
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0006.html

    And that's just for starters ........ Any lawyer volunteers out there??


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭john.han


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Anything to do with Dennis O'Brien (much as I personally dislike him) is prejudiced because of his association with Lowry and the doubts many people still have over the East license.

    That's bias in the media, not kangaroo justice.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Waste of time claiming they lowballed it, because the simple fact of the matter is that they didn't know how much it would cost (I'm waiting to see if they were stupid enough to have that conversation on a phone). They tried to take the bare minimum and this strategy failed.

    More is expected of directors of companies than of ordinary people, it was their job to know what was needed, by plucking figures out of their arse and presenting them as fact (knowing there was no rationale behind the numbers they used) they may have commited crimes.The negligence standard of intent can be enough for certain criminal offences, them not knowing could be enough to establish incompetence to the degree that makes them criminal.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    Make your mind up implies that the concepts are mutually exclusive, which they are not. The indo can have f**ked things up independently of whether or not anything illegal was done.

    What have they f**ked up if there was nothing illegal?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Fraud is notoriously hard to prove here, good luck with that.
    Where are you getting this from?

    I agree that our statute provisions are generally weak, but on the other hand, case law suggests that conspiracy to defraud is a comparatively broad offence. This was gone through at some length earlier in the thread (to save it being rehashed).

    Why are you suggesting it is "notoriously difficult" to prove?

    As always, the investigation is probably exceedingly laborious. That doesn't mean that the actual charge cannot be reasonably simple. Juries love simple charges, and conspiracy to defraud is about as simple as fraud charges get.

    People seem to think they have a licence to make all sorts of wild, far reaching legal generalizations, such as you have made, based on mere opinion. Sorry,it doesn't work like that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    I do not agree that a fair trial for these clowns is not possible.... if they were charged with anything. Every time RTE, or any TV station reports on a crime and details of a suspect and then if charged more details. Does this too then prejudice a fair trial??? It appears not, so why should these white collar individuals be allowed to use such a ploy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54,410 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    To be fair, what the government can do is political - they cannot make criminal prosecutions happen, thank God, and nobody should wish for them to be able to do any such thing.

    They should have no involvement in Garda investigations beyond the kind of thing Shatter offered to do 2 years ago, which was to give the fraud squad more manpower.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Ah FFS ??

    1. The Government control the courts because they appoint the judges.
    2. The Government control the Garda because they appoint the Commissioners.
    3. The Government control the media because their backers own most of the media.

    Shatter had plenty to say about that little scroat Wallace after his chat with the Commissioner over Wallace using a phone while driving.

    Scoffaw, you must really be on another planet if you think that the Govt do not control things.
    They are shouting the odds about an inquiry !! We have had plenty of useless inquiries and Tribunals which have no teeth before and they are only cosmetic exercises in my opinion.
    What we need is a trial but I have no doubt there will never be one as too many important people would be afraid of what might come out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,010 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Drumm has given an interview on the tapes to Irish Central: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Fromer-Anglo-Irish-Bank-chief-David-Drumm-apologizes-on-tapes-says-inquiry-needed-on-bank-guarantee-213713761.html?page=1

    I see he also thinks there ought to be an inquiry into the guarantee, and insists the issue is separate from the Anglo discussions:



    I think that's probably true - I don't see Anglo as the well connected bank here. He has previously said that AIB and BOI portrayed Anglo as the bank that needed the guarantee, and both those banks are far better connected than Anglo seems to have been.

    The case for the inclusion as fall guy rather than political favourite gets stronger if Drumm is correct when he says Anglo was still solvent in 2008:

    An intriguing adjustment of your earlier conclusions that the Anglo tapes revealed the bank guarantee was seemingly drawn up to serve Anglo-Irish's need for liquidity. Now poor old out of the loop Anglo-Irish were being used as the patsy for some deep dark scheme which you can identify from no direct evidence whatsoever. You're happily throwing around accusations of conspiracy theories with regards to the criminal investigation (or lack-thereof) but you seem to have a few of your own. For myself, I tend to agree with the man that said never ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by incompetence. The Irish banks were are incompetent - far too incompetent to run a conspiracy that amounted to more than desperate, drowning, clawing survival. The Irish civil service and regulators were are incompetent (I see good old Kevin Cardiff has been name checked in the tapes - deary me). The Irish cabinet and Dail were are way, way, way, way out of their depth and too proud to admit it. The bank guarantee was a stress test of the Irish state's ability to make policy and it failed, horribly. There has been practically no improvement in the matter despite the change of political parties since.

    As for Drumm and his views on what constitutes a solvent, well run bank at any given point in time...I wouldn't rely on that particular expertise to support an argument tbh.


  • Posts: 1,557 [Deleted User]


    Ah FFS ??

    1. The Government control the courts because they appoint the judges.
    2. The Government control the Garda because they appoint the Commissioners.
    3. The Government control the media because their backers own most of the media.

    Shatter had plenty to say about that little scroat Wallace after his chat with the Commissioner over Wallace using a phone while driving.

    Scoffaw, you must really be on another planet if you think that the Govt do not control things....

    For me this is the crux of the problem. Too much corruption combined with vested interests in government in seeing that the truth doesn't get out, because our authorities stand to lose more face than anyone for their part in the shambles. Anglo and the rest of the banks were criminally greedy and reckless, certainly, but there will always be greedy reckless criminals. It's a fact of life. Its crime on an unprecedented scale, certainly, but it is just crime, and criminals can be guarded against. That's why we put measures in place to ensure we are protected from their actions.

    The real failure here was by our asleep at the wheel officials and public institutions. When you get past the staggering reckless greed of Anglo and the like, it becomes clear that it was just that: greed, by a bunch of private sector, out for themselves criminals, and our only line of defence against it was so inept, negligent, and underresourced as to be completely ineffective. That's bad enough, but now our government which along with our civil service is culpable up to their necks in it can use its extensive corrupt influence (as described above) surpress information and control the outcome of any kind of investigation to slow the pace of justice to a crawl and cover their tracks, and in the process allow those complicit to evade justice with ease.

    We as taxpayers have borne the entire cost of this shambles so far. It is going to rob our country of its quality of life for generations. We DESERVE the truth, and the whole truth of the matter at the very least for what we have paid, and yet we as a nation are still nonchalant, even defeatist about it. The old "ah shure what can you do, best not to think about it, it would only make you angry" crap.

    Our politicians are talking about parliamentary enquiries and trading political snipes across the floor of Leinster house. They've been doing it for a week, since the story broke, and before that they did it for years after the events in our banks became evident. Meanwhile, I guarantee you, somebody somewhere is spending their nights shredding files, wiping hard drives, and covering their tracks and those of their friends.

    This endless debate is the modern equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. We need action, we have had enough talk.

    I firmly believe that our political system in Ireland is broken beyond repair. Corruption is now so endemic throughout our key public institutions that the term "separation of powers" is nothing but a joke. I believe the only way to fix this system of corruption that has been a hundred years in the making is to tear it down and rebuild. I believe that nothing less than the complete renewal of our outdated constitution, possibly to coincide with the centenary of our independence, is needed.

    That, and only that would give me hope for real meaningful change in Ireland. Without starting over after a major period of consecutive systemic failures, and rebuilding with the benefit of what we have learned from past mistakes, i believe that all we will get is more of the same corruption, revelations, slow responses, failure of oversight, retrospective anger, whitewashes, toothless parliamentary enquiries, widespread political apathy, and no real change.

    Unless we demand more from how our state operates, and hold hose who fail or transgress against us to account, We will always be ripe for somebody somewhere who is sharper, more callous, more agile, and better resourced than we are to come and steal the family silver, and all we will ever be able to do about it is shut the door after the horse has bolted, and fail to see the next threat coming into the stable until its too late.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,028 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I do not agree that a fair trial for these clowns is not possible.... if they were charged with anything. Every time RTE, or any TV station reports on a crime and details of a suspect and then if charged more details. Does this too then prejudice a fair trial??? It appears not, so why should these white collar individuals be allowed to use such a ploy.

    Personally I don't think the tapes have done a whole lot. The reputation of bankers might be at bit lower now but it was very low to begin with anyway.

    But people have to remember innocent until before proven guilty, right to a fair trial are basic human rights. I think the last thing anyone wants is bankers to get away with any crimes they might have committed because of basic things like that. And the only way that can be done if the gardai are let do their job without political interference. Far better spend 6/7 years doing a proper investigation that ends with a conviction than having a show trial where in the end of the day the people involved get off scot free due the European Court of Human Rights.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,724 ✭✭✭flutered


    posters are saying that they may not get a fair trial, well there is a three judge court which can be used as it does not have a jury.


  • Posts: 1,557 [Deleted User]


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    ...I think the last thing anyone wants is bankers to get away with any crimes they might have committed because of basic things like that. And the only way that can be done if the gardai are let do their job without political interference. Far better spend 6/7 years doing a proper investigation that ends with a conviction than having a show trial where in the end of the day the people involved get off scot free due the European Court of Human Rights.

    I fully agree with your point about the importance of a full and proper trial by due process, but at the same time it is vitally important that its done within a reasonable timeframe. Look at the enormity of consequence of what was done, the magnitude of the effect it has had on our country, and the sinking in morale it has caused here, and then ask whether it would be prudent to throw three or four times the resources into the investigation, and bring that 6 or 7 years down to 1 or 2, get meaningful convictions, and set an example of the severe consequences for such reckless behaviour.

    Right now, all we have told the world is "come to Ireland to do business, you can do anything you want, bring the country to its knees if you like, we wont be any the wiser till its all over, and you'll be able to shut up shop and do a runner for the best part of a decade before you even have to think about being extradited"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,635 ✭✭✭maninasia


    I fully agree with your point about the importance of a full and proper trial by due process, but at the same time it is vitally important that its done within a reasonable timeframe. Look at the enormity of consequence of what was done, the magnitude of the effect it has had on our country, and the sinking in morale it has caused here, and then ask whether it would be prudent to throw three or four times the resources into the investigation, and bring that 6 or 7 years down to 1 or 2, get meaningful convictions, and set an example of the severe consequences for such reckless behaviour.

    Right now, all we have told the world is "come to Ireland to do business, you can do anything you want, bring the country to its knees if you like, we wont be any the wiser till its all over, and you'll be able to shut up shop and do a runner for the best part of a decade before you even have to think about being extradited"

    The timeframe is extremely important. You can't have lads running around who were possibly involved in billions of Euro fraud for 5-10 years. The lack of urgency for criminal prosecution is galling. Why does it take so long? Why not allocate more resources and speed it up?
    What's the expected timeline? Why do they have their passports, can they not be placed under restrictions during the investigations? They were running banks that imploded with 50 billion+ in debts.

    The sheer amount of money involved and the massive impact these activities have resulted in DEMAND an investigation that is very different than your local pub fiddling the tills.

    It's all got the familiar tribunal ring to it, and the governments best response is, 'lets open an oireachtas inquiry'.

    FFS.


Advertisement