Will anybody actually be jailed over the banks fiasco?

Daroxtar

RIGHT, THE PAIR OF YE, ... DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL GO TO JAIL??
YES OR NO?
Thank you

molloyjh

Daroxtar wrote: »

RIGHT, THE PAIR OF YE, ... DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL GO TO JAIL??
YES OR NO?
Thank you

As it stands No. But I get the impression there's more revelations to come regarding Anglo and IN so it wouldn't surprise me if something came of that. If there was illegal activity then given the current climate there's no way they could get away with escaping prison time. Nor should they.

Dannyboy83

molloyjh wrote: »

Oh here don't go taking my comments personally. I said people, I didn't mention any names. It was an aside to the discussion. I am in no way biased here I'm just saying that the jailtime thing seems to have become a bit of a slogan that is utterly meaningless for the most part. At the end iof the day you say we "know" there has been fraudulant activity. Where? Stop throwing around these accusations without backing them up with something. There was recklessness across the board, everyone partook in it. And to try and pin the blame on any one group makes no sense. We all carry the responsibility to some degree or other. We each need to own up to our part in it and figure out where we need to go from here. Justice is a lovely term, but in this instance exectly what do you mean by it?

I'm not taking it personally (I can't because I'm not a homeowner:p).
And given the way this country is going I may be forced to bin house buying plans and emigrate (expecting high tax rates shortly).

Fair enough, it was an aside, buy can you not see the rot that this sets in. Anyway, lets forget about that and focus on the issue.

By Justice, I mean, all of the people who acted illegaly should be prosecuted if we have means to prosecute them.
IL&P chairman, Anglo decision makers etc.

Secondly, we need urgent reform of our political and financial sectors and we need to urgently rethink the operations of our Financial regulator.
There is a case history here with Enron which could be very useful to us.

Thirdly, for those who acted unethically, but cannot be prosecuted, we cannot introduce a retrospective law, but perhaps we can catch these people for Tax evasion or confiscate assets using CAB.

Lastly, we need to legislate against these abuses ever occuring again, so that the international community is not afriad to invest money head.


I just want to make one very strong point.
There is absolutely no sense in us washing our dirty laundry in public unless we are prepared to act. All this has done is to undermine confidence and ruin our financial standing.
For example, we are close to defaulting.
To insure our debt has gone from 10c per 100 euro, to 3.50 per hundred euro (I may be inaccurate with the figures, but you get the drift).

Unless we take action and prosecute those who have broken the law, we have taken the worst possible course.

If no action is taken, how will we convince people that we are safe and sound for investment?
In that instance, we would have been better off covering the whole thing up and refusing to disclose it to the public in the national interest.

molloyjh

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm not taking it personally (I can't because I'm not a homeowner:p).

Ah well feck ya anyway, I'm one of the negative equity suckers! :pac:

To be honest I think we're on the same page. I agree with all of the above. However trying to punish the unethical actions may be difficult. I don't think they could be hit by CAB, in fact I think their existing assets are safe, but name and shame and make their future difficult is something that we could do....

Sorry I tend to play devils advocate a lot. Probably should be a solicitor!!! :pac:

Dannyboy83

Daroxtar wrote: »

RIGHT, THE PAIR OF YE, ... DO YOU THINK ANYONE WILL GO TO JAIL??
YES OR NO?
Thank you

Normally I would say no.

I imagine the political pressure is too great at the moment however.
If we don't leave the Union, other countries may want to get rid of us, Germany/France, if we don't act.
(Can you imagine how embarrassing it must be for politicians of this country?
First they messed up the EU constitution, and now they have taken the EU's star pupil into Europe's sick man territory on their watch)

Remember what happened to Bulgaria, their EU bank account was closed because they didn't combat fraud.
If we're expecting an EU bailout package in the event that we do default, or Germany to buy our toxic debts, we pretty much have to do their bidding.

I just hope it will be the right person.

I have a feeling some poor [EMAIL="b@$tard"]b@$tard[/EMAIL] is gonna get strung up for this, like some deputy junior executive.

Mr.Micro

Nobody will be charged or jailed IMO. When you get this sort of thing going on. We might probably find its a nice cozy cartel of business men who have to be protected by FF at all costs?



Anglo share purchases raised in Dáil Tuesday, 17 February 2009 20:21

The Taoiseach has denied that he or any of his ministers knew the identities of a group of wealthy individuals involved in questionable purchases of Anglo Irish Bank shares before the bank was nationalised.

The Office of Corporate Enforcement is investigating transactions surrounding the sale of the interest in the bank held by the family of billionaire businessman Sean Quinn

The bizarre financial dealings at Anglo-Irish Bank dominated Dáil proceedings this afternoon, as Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore quizzed the Taoiseach on when he knew of attempts to shore up the bank's share price.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0217/angloirish.html

Dannyboy83

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah well feck ya anyway, I'm one of the negative equity suckers! :pac:

To be honest I think we're on the same page. I agree with all of the above. However trying to punish the unethical actions may be difficult. I don't think they could be hit by CAB, in fact I think their existing assets are safe, but name and shame and make their future difficult is something that we could do....

Sorry I tend to play devils advocate a lot. Probably should be a solicitor!!! :pac:

Its constructive and I welcome it.

I agree, you cannot really punish unethical actions apart from making dirt of their name, but you can legislate against them in future.

However, in terms of Sean Fitzpatrick for example, who has participated/stage managed Corporate Fraud in their 4 billion ping pong game between Anglo and IL&P:
1. Anglo Irish stakeholders are fully within their rights to sue Anglo (now owned by the government, which will be paid by the taxpayer)
2. His personal assets should be possessed by CAB, he'll probably declare bankruptcy anyway
3. He should get jail. If legal action by the Anglo shareholders is successful, that is going to turn Ireland's coffers from a gaping hole into a haemorraging mess

seamus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I stated the opinion that there is irrefutable evidence that these people acted fraudulently and outside the law.

If that's an opinion, then surely you have or have seen this evidence in order to have formed this opinion?

Subsequently, I asked for evidence which contradicts the existing evidence of fraud which would therefore render our EnronTastic friends innocent.

Therefore, I'm not asking for proof of innocence, I'm asking for proof that the evidence which shows their guilt is incorrect

See this is the thing - what evidence? You've failed to present any.

nice_guy80

somebody has to be seen to be arrested and handcuffed and led into court to face some charges about how banks have been run

preferrably seanie fitz and a few others

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

If that's an opinion, then surely you have or have seen this evidence in order to have formed this opinion?
See this is the thing - what evidence? You've failed to present any.

It was discussed at the start of this topic mate.
All over the politics forum.
And on the TV right now.

Let me go again: (I need to save this to a text file)

• Anglo suffered withdrawals of 4 billion
• IL&P transferred 4 billion during September in Anglo's accounts.
• This 4 Billion was accounted as regular deposits, bank reserve, as opposed to an interbank transfer.
• This was done to obscure the truth that Anglo was significantly over-leveraged in order to portray Anglo in a substantially stronger position than what they were.
• This is direct corporate fraud and their accounts were manipulated in order to support it, accounting fraud.
• It has transpired that the financial regulator was made aware of this transfer (not necessarily of the illegal manipulation of accounts - for which he should face jail for participating in fraud)
• People who invested in Anglo are within their rights to sue Anglo Irish Bank (now owned by the Irish government, so ultimately they will sue the Irish taxpayer)
• Following the accounts in September, the money was lodged back into IL&Ps accounts.

Search for Kenneth Lay on Wikipedia.

Dannyboy83

I might not be Enda Kenny's greatest fan, but I will give him this:

He was just on the 9 o clock news, putting these very facts to the Taoiseach and demanding to know why the Fraud division had not been called in.

ckristo2

Hi DaroxTar,
To answer your question whether anybody will be jailed over the current financial scandal I can say categorically that no one involved in any banking scandal past or present (or for that matter in the future) will ever even have to sit down with a fraud squad detective let alone serve time in jail. Why because they are wealthy men (mostly men) and who makes the laws T.D.s who court the favours (and more importantly the political donations) of those wealthy men. Putting your pals in jail would send out all the wrong signals don't you know. Just distract yourself by reading the front page of the Herald about some crazed gangland monster who shot somebody in a poor neighbourhood and put all those thoughts of jailing nice men in suits far from your mind. all the best

Daroxtar

ckristo2 wrote: »

Just distract yourself by reading the front page of the Herald about some crazed gangland monster who shot somebody in a poor neighbourhood and put all those thoughts of jailing nice men in suits far from your mind. all the best

Dont think we get that jackeen paper out here. I read something about a drunk driver terrorising athboy in the meath chronicle though..:):)

juuge

The hierarchy within the banks have always been held in high esteem by the establishment, let's not forget when brian lenihan first called them in for a meeting it was in Farmleigh House no less, sipping fine wines and dining at our expense.

mccutchie

Nobody will get jailed, fraud squad wont be called. Golden handshakes all round after some token resignations. Thats how it has been and how it will continue.

I wont expect anything less from our spineless goverment, who continue to hit the low paid, the middle class, the students, the kids in schools that need assistence. All easy hits and if the irish people dont start standing up, more will come and those who commited fraudulant activity as described above will walk away scot free.

Its becoming more and more like a banana republic

seamus

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

• Anglo suffered withdrawals of 4 billion
• IL&P transferred 4 billion during September in Anglo's accounts.
• This 4 Billion was accounted as regular deposits, bank reserve, as opposed to an interbank transfer.
• This was done to obscure the truth that Anglo was significantly over-leveraged in order to portray Anglo in a substantially stronger position than what they were.
• This is direct corporate fraud and their accounts were manipulated in order to support it, accounting fraud.
• It has transpired that the financial regulator was made aware of this transfer (not necessarily of the illegal manipulation of accounts - for which he should face jail for participating in fraud)
• People who invested in Anglo are within their rights to sue Anglo Irish Bank (now owned by the Irish government, so ultimately they will sue the Irish taxpayer)
• Following the accounts in September, the money was lodged back into IL&Ps accounts.

I'm perfectly aware of the relevant information. Please quote the legislation under which the alleged illegal acts fall.

You can claim that the law has been broken until the cows come home but unless you can quote something relevant, such as legislation, you're not really getting anywhere.

P. Breathnach

murfie wrote: »

...The Chairman of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, Dr Michael Walsh, resigned earlier this evening over the loan giving to the chairman of Anglo...

How do you know that? The media commentators said that he had not stated his reasons for resigning.

Dannyboy83

seamus wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware of the relevant information. Please quote the legislation under which the alleged illegal acts fall.

You can claim that the law has been broken until the cows come home but unless you can quote something relevant, such as legislation, you're not really getting anywhere.

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

Fraud Act 2006 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
The Companies (Auditing & Accounting) Act 2003


Are you a solicitor then?

p.s. Believe it or not, you don't need to be able to quote legislation to know when an offence has been commited.

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

stepbar

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

p.s. Believe it or not, you don't need to be able to quote legislation to know when an offence has been commited.

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

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.

The Corinthian

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

p.s. Believe it or not, you don't need to be able to quote legislation to know when an offence has been commited.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.