Will anybody actually be jailed over the banks fiasco?

Erin Go Brath

The public and opposition parties want their pound of flesh over the banking fiasco. Its just a matter of time before serious pressure is put on the authorities to arrest corrupt "high flyers" in the banking world. They've had an easy ride so far, i think they are in for a rude awakening in these recessionary times.

SkepticOne

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually legally you do. Otherwise you're simply guessing, stating opinion as fact, and if you are wrong you are committing defamation, which, ironically, is an offence.

Even if you think you know the legislation, the interpretation of that legislation in a given situation is a matter for the courts.

seamus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act, 2001
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2001/a5001.pdf

Please state the section of this act under which you would arrest the individuals involved and the evidence which would support such an arrest.

Fraud Act 2006 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002

Neither of these are relevant in this jurisdiction.

The Companies (Auditing & Accounting) Act 2003

Please state the section of this act under which you would arrest the individuals involved and the evidence which would support such an arrest.

I couldn't tell you what law is used to prosecute murder, but I know its illegal and I know you'll go to jail for it

As Corinthian points out, you know what murder is, but I bet you'd have a much harder time identifying it correctly when you see it. If you saw a man standing in the street with a knife in his hand and a dead man at his feet, would you say that's murder? You'd have very little evidence to support that assertion and it could be anything of 100 other offences (or the man in question may not have committed any offence at all).

Just as you know what fraud is, I know what fraud is, as do the dogs on the street, but I bet most of us would be completely incapable of knowing it - in a legal capacity - when we see it.

The Corinthian

SkepticOne wrote: »

Even if you think you know the legislation, the interpretation of that legislation in a given situation is a matter for the courts.

True, that's why we have trials. However my point is that simply because the mob wants its pound of flesh, does not make it legal in itself. Just because we think something should be illegal does not make it so. If we believe it is illegal, after informing ourselves, then we have a right to make such accusations, even if ultimately a court decides we're wrong. But at least we will have informed ourselves, rather than behaving as a lynch mob.

deadhead13

Companies act, Market abuse regulations - which covers insider trading and "market manipupulation". The maximum sanction being 10,000,000 euro fine and/or 10 years imprisonment.

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

Please state the section of this act under which you would arrest the individuals involved and the evidence which would support such an arrest.

((Relevant information posted below.))

As regards the specifics - I think you're not quite aware of the present situation.
Only a limited group of people at present have access to this evidence.
We(the public) only know whats reported in the papers.

1. If this evidence is incorrect, if these accusations printed across all media are libelous/slanderous, why did Sean Fitzpatrick or Anglo not launch legal action?

2. If the evidence is incorrect, can you explain this article?
TOP INVESTMENT FIRMS TO SUE

Neither of these are relevant in this jurisdiction.

Incorrect, its relevant to American companies working within Ireland and was passed as a result of the Enron scandal.
There are equivalents in European Law and Irish Law.


None the less, answer me 2 simple questions.

3. Are you suggesting that a person can legally defraud investors and commit accounting fraud within Ireland?
Yes or No? (check)

4. Do you dispute the reports within the papers regarding said reports of fraud and accounting falsifications and hold them to be untrue?
Yes or No? (checkmate);)

As Corinthian points out, you know what murder is, but I bet you'd have a much harder time identifying it correctly when you see it. If you saw a man standing in the street with a knife in his hand and a dead man at his feet, would you say that's murder? You'd have very little evidence to support that assertion and it could be anything of 100 other offences (or the man in question may not have committed any offence at all).

Just as you know what fraud is, I know what fraud is, as do the dogs on the street, but I bet most of us would be completely incapable of knowing it - in a legal capacity - when we see it.

For all of those saying you need to know statutes, bills and acts etc. to know a crime - I disagree
You need to know the legal weaponry in order to prosecute a crime.
Otherwise, how does a 5 year old know its wrong to steal?
If one required a degree in law in order to uphold the law, the law would be non-enforcable.
Equally, law would not be a profitable trade as it is now when only a small proportion of the population know the law specificially.

If you were suggesting by your argument that you must know the law specifically in order to detain or prosecute a violator of those laws - yes I agree wholeheartedly, but that is a complete different point to the one I was making.

To need to know the law specifically, in order to determine right from wrong, would lead to a very, very bizzare world.

Now, I never studied Company law, I did however study Insider Trading.
Why did I know its wrong to embezzle money prior to studying Insider Trading?
Answer: To be simplistic, if you know what the 10 Commandments are, you should be able to determine ethically incorrect and consequently legally incorrect behaviour.
Its not a perfect formula, but 9 times out of 10, its close enough.

(For those being pedantic, go read the Koran for broad interpretations of Muslim law or the Old Testament for interpretations of Israeli/Hebrew law)




Seamus,
You can't see the wood from the trees my friend.

In your flawed and irrelevant analogy, your using a specific witness case type example which relies on me acting as both Jessica Fletcher and Matlock.

Lets be clear here, I wasn't present during/witness to ANY of the transactions. I'm neither detective inspector nor legal eagle.
I'm going on the facts which have been reported on every major new channel across the country.
Therefore, using your analogy, I don't NEED to be able to determine that the murder was committed, that has already been established.

I don't NEED to know the law under which these people are prosecuted, would it be useful to know specifically.. however, if you know then please share, otherwise I think you'll agree, thats a different thread and belongs in the legal forum.
Now, using your analogy, all I am doing is trying to generate as much momentum where-ever I possibly can in order to ensure that the murderer is prosecuted.

If you wish to dispute the 'evidence' around the case, I suggest you contact RTE and Brian Cowen a buzz.


Now, can I ask you an honest question?
Are you a banker?:D

Dannyboy83

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, that's why we have trials. However my point is that simply because the mob wants its pound of flesh, does not make it legal in itself.

A gale force of ignorance there.
Not sure why you have become so polarised as I've seen some of your other arguments and you generally seem levelheaded.

The mob doesn't want its pound of flesh.
The honest, decent, law abiding citizens of this country want to see justice served against the criminals who are flouting the law.

Just because we think something should be illegal does not make it so. If we believe it is illegal, after informing ourselves, then we have a right to make such accusations, even if ultimately a court decides we're wrong. But at least we will have informed ourselves, rather than behaving as a lynch mob.

Lynch mob.

Where is this lynch mob you keep referring to?

The fact is, there is mostly apathy and it looks like these guys are going to get away with.
Why do you think I'm trying to generate momentum to prosecute these corrupt "decision makers"?

Honest question for you my friend:
If these bankers are not punished, will that make you feel better?

Dannyboy83

Market Abuse Regulations

New Regulations on insider dealing have become law. Some are in force since the start of July. Others take effect from October.
They replace the existing rules in the 1990 Companies Act (which have been repealed for dealings on regulated stock markets but are still applicable to dealings on unregulated markets, such as IEX) by transposing into Irish law certain EU Directives dealing with "market abuse". The term "market abuse" is used to cover insider dealing and "market manipulation", a new offence created by the Regulations.

Market manipulation is given a broad description by the Regulations but includes transactions which give false or misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for or price of financial instruments, transactions which employ fictitious devices and the dissemination of information which is likely to give misleading signals as to financial instruments.

The Regulations provide for the prevention, detection and investigation of market abuse in relation to financial instruments traded on a regulated market in at least one Member State.

The Regulations also introduce new rules concerning the requirements for and timing of disclosure of information to the market (including a requirement for companies to post on their internet sites for at least 6 months all inside information that they are required to disclose publicly). Listed companies will also, with effect from 1 October 2005, be required to keep a regularly updated list of those persons working for them who have access to inside information and will be required to furnish this list to the Stock Exchange upon request. Persons discharging managerial responsibilities in a listed company must notify the company of transactions conducted on their own account relating to shares in the company within 3 working days, and must notify the Stock Exchange within 5 working days. Upon receipt of such a notification, the company must also notify the Stock Exchange, by the end of the next working day.

In the event of breach of the Regulations, the Regulator may impose sanctions including:-

• a private or public caution or reprimand;
• an administrative fine of up to €2,500,000;
• disqualification from being involved in the management of a financial service provider;
• a direction to pay the costs involved in any investigation.

In addition to the above, the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2005 specifies the penalties on conviction on indictment of market abuse offences - the maximum sanction is a fine of €10,000,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

The 2005 Act also provides for civil liability for breaches of Irish market abuse law. It distinguishes between insider dealing offences and market manipulation offences. A party guilty of insider dealing is liable to pay compensation to a party involved in the transaction who was not in possession of the inside information for loss suffered as a result and account to the company for any profit made. A party guilty of market manipulation is liable to compensate all parties dealing in shares (whether with the guilty party or not) as a result of the breach and account to the company for any profit made. Any civil action must be commenced within 2 years of the date of the contravention.





Market Abuse Regulations

The Market Abuse (Directive2003/6/EC) Regulations came into operation on 6 July 2005. Market abuse consists of insider dealing and market manipulation in respect of financial instruments admitted to trading on a European Economic Area (EEA) regulated market, such as the Irish Stock Exchange's Official List, or for which a request for admission for trading on such a regulated market has been sought, irrespective of whether or not the transaction itself actually takes place on that regulated market. The Market Abuse Regulations also apply to financial instruments not admitted to trading on a regulated market in an EEA member state, but whose value depends on a financial instrument admitted to trading on a regulated market in an EEA Member State, or for which such an admission to trading has been sought.
In addition to providing for the prohibition on engaging in market abuse, the Market Abuse Regulations, inter alia, impose certain obligations on relevant issuers, those involved in the management of such issuers, persons professionally arranging transactions and on persons (including the media and journalists) involved in the preparation and dissemination of recommendations.

The Financial Regulator has been appointed the competent authority for the purposes of the Market Abuse Regulations, however, certain duties have been delegated to the Irish Stock Exchange by the Financial Regulator.

It should also be noted that Part V of the Companies Act,1990 ("Part V") which relates to insider dealing still applies to securities listed on the Irish Enterprise Exchange (IEX). The Irish Stock Exchange remains solely responsible for the investigation of activities relating to Part V. However, since the introduction of MiFID the Exchange is obliged to report any market abuse identified on its markets to the Financial Regulator.

Pub07

seamus wrote: »

Please state the section of this act under which you would arrest the individuals involved and the evidence which would support such an arrest.
Neither of these are relevant in this jurisdiction.

Please state the section of this act under which you would arrest the individuals involved and the evidence which would support such an arrest.
As Corinthian points out, you know what murder is, but I bet you'd have a much harder time identifying it correctly when you see it. If you saw a man standing in the street with a knife in his hand and a dead man at his feet, would you say that's murder? You'd have very little evidence to support that assertion and it could be anything of 100 other offences (or the man in question may not have committed any offence at all).

Just as you know what fraud is, I know what fraud is, as do the dogs on the street, but I bet most of us would be completely incapable of knowing it - in a legal capacity - when we see it.

Why dont you ask Senator Ivana Bacik (Reid Professor of Criminal Law, Criminology and Penology at Trinity College Dublin) to point out the relevant law on fraud as she stood up in the Senate yesterday and said that the existing legislation is perfectably accpetable to use for prosecuting the bankers and it's only the lack of political will that is holding up this process.

She's knows criminal law far better than anyone here and probably anyone in the Senate or Dail aswell so I think if she says the bankers have acted illegaly and there is legislation in existance to prosecute I think it's fair to say she's right.

seamus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

As regards the specific piece of evidence - I think your not quite aware of the present situation.
Only a limited group of people at present have access to this evidence.
We(the public) only know whats reported in the papers.

Exactly. So you have very limited information to operate off, yet...

1. If this evidence is incorrect, if these accusations printed across all media are libelous/slanderous, why did Sean Fitzpatrick or Anglo not launch legal action?

I've been listening very carefully to the small number of media I do watch, and they've all been very careful about mentioning illegality. They're happy to admit that it looks dodgy, that's it unethical, that it's irresponsible and all that, but I've yet to hear one person use the words, "criminal" or "illegal", except to say that, "So far, it doesn't look like anything illegal has occured". I'm open to correction on this - if the times has said it's illegal, for example.

2. If the evidence is incorrect, can you explain this article?
TOP INVESTMENT FIRMS TO SUE

Criminal and civil are two very different branches of law. Someone suing successfully in a civil case does not mean that they have sufficient evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing.

Incorrect, its relevant to American companies working within Ireland and was passed as a result of the Enron scandal.

It's "relevant" only in so far as they've to protect themselves from the US. Where we're discussing Irish banks, it's irrelevant and has no power in this jurisdiction.

3. Are you suggesting that a person can legally defraud investors and commit accounting fraud within Ireland?
Yes or No? (check)

That depends on what your interpretation of "defraud" is. I have a very loose interpretation of it, such that yes I do personally believe it is possible to defraud someone out of money and to not have done anything legally wrong.

4. Do you dispute the reports within the papers regarding said reports of fraud and accounting falsifications and hold them to be untrue?
Yes or No? (checkmate);)

Technically, there were no "falsifications" of accounts. It's pedantry yes, but at no time did somebody put a figure into a column which was made up out of thin air. As far as I can see and as every single paper has reported there is a full audit trail on all transactions and accounts. At no point did anybody actually lie, however they may have taken advantage of accounting tricks to present a situation which was better than the reality. You may call this lying. Hell, I call this lying. However, it may not be "lying" as the law sees it.

Answer: To be simplistic, if you know what the 10 Commandments are, you should be able to determine ethically incorrect and consequently legally incorrect behaviour.
Its not a perfect formula, but 9 times out of 10, its close enough.

But the topic is legality, not morality. The two very often don't match up. Things which are immoral are often not illegal, and vice-versa. Just because you think what the banks did is "wrong", does not make it "illegal".

Therefore, using your analogy, I don't NEED to be able to determine that the murder was committed, that has already been established.

Using my analogy, you're reading in the papers that Joe Bloggs was found standing over his wife's body with a knife in his hand, and you're deciding based on this limited evidence that he must be guilty of murder because the evidence says so. Can you see the flaw in your reasoning?

Now, can I ask you an honest question?
Are you a banker?:D

I'm neither a solicitor nor a banker, nor any desire to be either. I'm simply countering your insistence on stating that something is illegal purely because you seem to wish that it is so.

ckristo2

Now that's more like it! A drunk driver terrorising Athboy. The best criminals are the ones you never hear about because they're so powerful the media is afraid of them. But give me a drunk driver any day something small and relatively harmless to distract us from the real mess the country is in.

Pub07

Why dont you respond to my post Seamus, I think you may have missed it as I posted as you were replying to someone else - post no. 60, where I highlighted the fact that Senator Ivana Bacik has said that bankers have acted illegaly and there is legislation in existance to prosecute.

Here's the post -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59081664&postcount=60

seamus

Why dont you ask Senator Ivana Bacik (Reid Professor of Criminal Law, Criminology and Penology at Trinity College Dublin) to point out the relevant law on fraud as she stood up in the Senate yesterday and said that the existing legislation is perfectably accpetable to use for prosecuting the bankers and it's only the lack of political will that is holding up this process.

She's knows criminal law far better than anyone here and probably anyone in the Senate or Dail aswell so I think if she says the bankers have acted illegaly and there is legislation in existance to prosecute I think it's fair to say she's right.

I will accept her comments, but I suspect she was availing of Dail privilege there (does it apply in the Senate?), which protects her from legal action by those involved.

My own opinions about Senator Bacik aside, let's assume she's correct for the moment. If she did say this, then how come the media still aren't declaring these actions illegal? If she's correct, then how come the Gardai aren't knocking on doors with arrest warrants right now?

Dannyboy83

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually legally you do. Otherwise you're simply guessing, stating opinion as fact, and if you are wrong you are committing defamation, which, ironically, is an offence.

That is if it is murder. Killing someone is not always murder, it can be self defence, manslaughter or even death by misadventure. No guarantee of jail time for those.

I disagree.
To be honest, I think its an absurd suggestion!

In your example, the person prosecuting the crime NEEDS TO/SHOULD know the law specifically.
However, the victim/perpetrator as the case may be - does not need to know the law (i.e. legal definitions, statues etc. as you have suggested) in the vast majority of scenarios. They simply need to know they acted ethically. And you generally don't need to know specific law to know an offence has been committed.
Common sense and cultural upbringing should dictate that.
(There are of course exceptions to these rules such as immigrants from England to Dubai, but the onus is on these people to learn the law, regardless, they still do NOT need to know statues, acts and bills. ).

In the events where these are the exception to the rule, well.......this is why bank managers and financial regulators are paid such vast sums, they are expected to know the relevant laws fully and act within them.

As I said earlier there are plenty of things that are immoral or unethical that are actually not illegal. AFAIR, insider trading was not covered by criminal law until the nineties and so neither might some of the things that were carried out by bank officials be. That's not to say that I do not believe that some of the behaviour by bank officials should be considered criminal, but that is not the same to it actually being criminal.

I agree with this point and you read back through my earlier posts, you will see that I have made the exact same point.

The actions of Sean FitzPatrick in hiding his personal loans was morally and ethically wrong. However, since we have never legislated against this, it is NOT criminally wrong.
Therefore, its unlikely that CAB can possess his personal assets.

Dannyboy83

stepbar wrote: »

I think you'll find that you do sir. How would you know what offence was committed LOL

Been through this in vast detail already.
You need to watch the specifics of what is written.

Has Indymedia infiltrated boards? I'm starting to think they have. Some of the stuff in this thread and others related ones is bordering on trash.

I have no idea who Indymedia is, but I assume it was derogatory given the implict remark about my posts being 'trash'. I'll have a good cry about that later.

I have no answer to offer, other than, at least I'm trying to figure out how to do something about it.
Whats your contribution?

I've seen enough of your other posts trolling, and you never really have anything constructive to offer, you simply divert threads for your own hidden agenda or sad pleasure or whatever.

In most of the threads in the politics forum with regard to the bankers, you are trolling them heavily.

So what is it?
Why the negativity toward anyone trying to do or learn about anything?

p.s. If you looking for a new source of bigotry/begrudgery, I suggest you read up on Willie O'Dea, I'm sure you'll find there is ample material there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59078175&postcount=57

Originally Posted by stepbar View Post
So far we have big words like

Fraud, Collusion, Negligence, Racketeering and Tax Evasion ( I especially love the last two LOL). This is hilarious. Tax fcuking evasion and Racketeering FFS
Big words indeed boys.

I don't see any Laws there boys...... Care to quote any? Mind you I don't see much of anything TBH but shur don't let that get in the way of some form of truth.

Youse seem to be fully intent on absolving people (as in the borrowers) of any blame in all this.

I'm starting to very seriously believe the Indymedia lads have sent a few of yiz over to stir sh1te. Some of the stuff wrote in this thread is absolutely mindblowing

was that deja vu? was that deja vu?

Pub07

seamus wrote: »

I will accept her comments, but I suspect she was availing of Dail privilege there (does it apply in the Senate?), which protects her from legal action by those involved.

My own opinions about Senator Bacik aside, let's assume she's correct for the moment. If she did say this, then how come the media still aren't declaring these actions illegal? If she's correct, then how come the Gardai aren't knocking on doors with arrest warrants right now?

The media are saying what happened 'may' be illegal because they dont know for sure. Unlike Bacik, they are not qualified and practising criminal lawyers or professors of criminal law in the top university in the country.

The reason the gardai aren't knocking on the doors is because the government wants to let the ODCE investigate it - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/government---refuses-to-ask--fraud-squad-to-investigate-1638367.html. Which I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was to facilitate a cover up. If this was the U.S. the cops would have raided and arrested these banks and bankers long ago, however in Ireland the way we do it is, instead of getting the gardai to investigate and possibly land some people in jail, we start a tribunal or some other type of laborious investigation so the issue looks like its being dealt with and then when the public anger has died down come out with a finding that lets people off the hook.

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

Exactly. So you have very limited information to operate off, yet...
I've been listening very carefully to the small number of media I do watch, and they've all been very careful about mentioning illegality. They're happy to admit that it looks dodgy, that's it unethical, that it's irresponsible and all that, but I've yet to hear one person use the words, "criminal" or "illegal", except to say that, "So far, it doesn't look like anything illegal has occured". I'm open to correction on this - if the times has said it's illegal, for example.
Criminal and civil are two very different branches of law. Someone suing successfully in a civil case does not mean that they have sufficient evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing.
It's "relevant" only in so far as they've to protect themselves from the US. Where we're discussing Irish banks, it's irrelevant and has no power in this jurisdiction.
That depends on what your interpretation of "defraud" is. I have a very loose interpretation of it, such that yes I do personally believe it is possible to defraud someone out of money and to not have done anything legally wrong.
Technically, there were no "falsifications" of accounts. It's pedantry yes, but at no time did somebody put a figure into a column which was made up out of thin air. As far as I can see and as every single paper has reported there is a full audit trail on all transactions and accounts. At no point did anybody actually lie, however they may have taken advantage of accounting tricks to present a situation which was better than the reality. You may call this lying. Hell, I call this lying. However, it may not be "lying" as the law sees it.
But the topic is legality, not morality. The two very often don't match up. Things which are immoral are often not illegal, and vice-versa. Just because you think what the banks did is "wrong", does not make it "illegal".
Using my analogy, you're reading in the papers that Joe Bloggs was found standing over his wife's body with a knife in his hand, and you're deciding based on this limited evidence that he must be guilty of murder because the evidence says so. Can you see the flaw in your reasoning?
I'm neither a solicitor nor a banker, nor any desire to be either. I'm simply countering your insistence on stating that something is illegal purely because you seem to wish that it is so.

Ok, I see the point you're making here, and I agree, its a good point.
i.e. that which is unethical, is not necessarily illegal

This is one of the points I've made earlier - if its not illegal, we need to legislate against it for the future.

Regarding the example you've given, I disagree, I think the scenario is different, papers have supplied ample evidence already, but regardless I accept your view and I want to move on, as the case is currently moving onward.

Regarding the last part, I do wish it was illegal and I accept your point, I see what you were getting at.
Thanks for the debate.

seamus

Pub07 wrote: »

top university in the country.

That's debatable (but not here!)

I'm not sure I share your sentiment about it being swept under the carpet. The current government are getting a pasting, and friends or no friends they would only be too eager to have someone else fall on the sword. So if the ODCE turns up anything illegal, however tiny, I imagine the government will be gung-ho to get results quickly so they can go, "Look! It was him! He f*cked up your economy!".

Dannyboy83

Pub07 wrote: »

The media are saying what happened 'may' be illegal because they dont know for sure. Unlike Bacik, they are not qualified and practising criminal lawyers or professors of criminal law in the top university in the country.

The reason the gardai aren't knocking on the doors is because the government wants to let the ODCE investigate it - http://www.independent.ie/national-news/government---refuses-to-ask--fraud-squad-to-investigate-1638367.html. Which I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was to facilitate a cover up. If this was the U.S. the cops would have raided and arrested these banks and bankers long ago, however in Ireland the way we do it is, instead of getting the gardai to investigate and possibly land some people in jail, we start a tribunal or some other type of laborious investigation so the issue looks like its being dealt with and then when the public anger has died down come out with a finding that lets people off the hook.

This completely sums up my train of thought.
Excellent post.:)

Referring to my earlier post where I listed action I would like to see taken, there is no point washing the dirty laundry in public unless action is taken.
This has completely undermined confidence in the economy and we are now in a bad situation, despite the fact that we entered the depression on very strong grounds relative to other countries.

My own personal suspicion is that:
A) There was/is collusion to keep the fiasco going, hence the attempted cover up or significant delay

(and/or)

There is worse yet to be uncovered

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

That's debatable (but not here!)

I'm not sure I share your sentiment about it being swept under the carpet. The current government are getting a pasting, and friends or no friends they would only be too eager to have someone else fall on the sword. So if the ODCE turns up anything illegal, however tiny, I imagine the government will be gung-ho to get results quickly so they can go, "Look! It was him! He f*cked up your economy!".

This is the interesting thing.
Given politics, that should have happened a lot time ago.

Every government always get a pasting during recession so thats a given, but for the first time in history, Fianna Fail are in third place, and it looks highly likely that many of them won't see office for a while after this.
Thats quite unprecedented.

I think that raises eyebrows.
Why instead of trying to find a scapegoat are they instead trying to keep everything quiet?

(p.s The financial regulator got a 640k golden handshake and E142k per year pension.)


p.p.s Can anybody please explain to me, how is all this information coming to the media?

Is it being leaked out?
Or is it being officially released?

If its being officially released, I guess that probably negates the collusion and brings it back to plain, old reliable incompetence.
But I don't think "I didn't read the report" will work this time.

Zynks

Wow guys, you lost me on hello!

Anyway, should fraudsters be arrested? Yes

Will they? Unlikely unless pressure on our politicians becomes unsustainable

More likely outcome? It will take a long time before the international community takes Ireland seriously again.

The Corinthian

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The mob doesn't want its pound of flesh.
The honest, decent, law abiding citizens of this country want to see justice served against the criminals who are flouting the law.

Well actually...

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The public and opposition parties want their pound of flesh over the banking fiasco. Its just a matter of time before serious pressure is put on the authorities to arrest corrupt "high flyers" in the banking world. They've had an easy ride so far, i think they are in for a rude awakening in these recessionary times.

Of course, this may not be your opinion and may simply be the opinion of Erin Go Brath and his ilk, but it does indicate that there can be a propensity towards lynch mobs in these situations.

If these bankers are not punished, will that make you feel better?

Not at all. I think that there is more than enough evidence that they have acted in an irresponsible manner and should, morally, be punished. That would make me feel better. However, I'd rather that we did so legally or not at all and not all of the posts I've read here seem to share this view.

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

In your example, the person prosecuting the crime NEEDS TO/SHOULD know the law specifically.

Not at all, certainly not specifically.

They simply need to know they acted ethically.

You can't get charged simply for being unethical.

Common sense and cultural upbringing should dictate that.

If common sense or conventional wisdom really existed for anything other than the simplest of things, we would all be in agreement here and on most other threads. And where would the fun in that be?

In the events where these are the exception to the rule, well.......this is why bank managers and financial regulators are paid such vast sums, they are expected to know the relevant laws fully and act within them.

Who decided that they are an exception to the rule? Wouldn't such an exception not be a rule too then? Or are we just going with the mob... I mean, flow?

In law there are no exceptions. Any 'exception' is in fact codified as part of the law, rather than outside it. There's no room to make things up as you go along. Of course interpretation of the law is another matter altogether.

Dannyboy83

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well actually...

Of course, this may not be your opinion and may simply be the opinion of Erin Go Brath and his ilk, but it does indicate that there can be a propensity towards lynch mobs in these situations.

Not at all. I think that there is more than enough evidence that they have acted in an irresponsible manner and should, morally, be punished. That would make me feel better. However, I'd rather that we did so legally or not at all and not all of the posts I've read here seem to share this view.

Not at all, certainly not specifically.

You can't get charged simply for being unethical.

If common sense or conventional wisdom really existed for anything other than the simplest of things, we would all be in agreement here and on most other threads. And where would the fun in that be?

Who decided that they are an exception to the rule? Wouldn't such an exception not be a rule too then? Or are we just going with the mob... I mean, flow?

In law there are no exceptions. Any 'exception' is in fact codified as part of the law, rather than outside it. There's no room to make things up as you go along. Of course interpretation of the law is another matter altogether.

We're long past this mate, do keep up:P

Regarding your point about common sense, its a fair comment.

All the other stuff, you know and I know that 99% of people on the street don't know the legal statues, acts, bills etc.
This is what I was referring to.
You can know the law, and you can know the legal definitions, terminology and weaponry.

Arguing that is just arguing for the sake of arguing, and I already have a GF mate.

old boy

it boils down to one fact, has anything been done that has been legislated against, one can assume, one can presume, one can speculate, it may be morally wrong, it may be legally wrong, but unless it has been legislated against ...........