The Golden Circle Strikes again!

iMax

Can we PLEASE star burning them out of the Dail & the bank boardrooms?

It emerged last night that Anglo Irish has decided not to pursue the 10 investors for the €75 million in security they offered for the €300 million in loans from the bank, because of legal problems with the loan agreement. The bank will confirm it has written off the loans in its annual report, to be published on Friday.

Irish Nationwide became the fourth guaranteed Irish lender to lose a chairman or chief executive in less than three months, as the building societys chairman, Dr Michael Walsh, resigned unexpectedly yesterday evening.

The Government said it had not received an explanation for Dr Walshs departure from Irish Nationwide which has been embroiled in the controversy over hidden loans to former Anglo Irish chairman Seán FitzPatrick.

In the Dáil last night Mr Lenihan confirmed that Bank of Ireland chief executive Brian Goggin will step down within the next three weeks, earlier than his planned departure this summer.

Irish Times

I'm thinking we're pretty much on the moral equivilent of the corrupt governments of the world at this stage. We're really in need of a Coup.

Akrasia

Lenihan is on Newstalk now saying he can't name the 10 in case he 'prejudices legal proceedings against them'

Riiiight, and how did that work when McDowell named Connolly as an IRA terrorist?

Its getting more and more obvious that FF are protecting their own skin by sheltering the anglo 10.

gandalf

skelliser wrote: »

This is very interesting

"It emerged last night that Anglo Irish has decided not to pursue the 10 investors for the €75 million in security they offered for the €300 million in loans from the bank, because of legal problems with the loan agreement. The bank will confirm it has written off the loans in its annual report, to be published on Friday."

Especially this!!

"In the Dáil last night Mr Lenihan confirmed that Bank of Ireland chief executive Brian Goggin will step down within the next three weeks, earlier than his planned departure this summer."

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0218/1224241332510.html

Sorry but if they owe the money to the bank because their "investment" went tits up tough luck they have to pay that €75 million back. The banks will and are pursuing people for mortgage arrears and re-possessing houses when they default. I fail to see how this situation is different unless when a loan amount goes over a certain figure and your connected you are given immunity from paying back the amount?

Get the money back and ruin them if that's what it takes. €75 Million is quite a few hospital beds Mr Cowen.

Pub07

Akrasia wrote: »

Lenihan is on Newstalk now saying he can't name the 10 in case he 'prejudices legal proceedings against them'

Riiiight, and how did that work when McDowell named Connolly as an IRA terrorist?

Its getting more and more obvious that FF are protecting their own skin by sheltering the anglo 10.

How would naming them preduce anything ffs. All he has to do is state a fact, ie..who they are, he doesn't have to give an opinion on it. Shure aren't they gonna be named anyway if there were to be 'legal proceedings' against them. Every murder/rape case is reported on in the media, how come they dont all get thrown out because of prejudice from being named?

Darragh29

Pub07 wrote: »

How would naming them preduce anything ffs. All he has to do is state a fact, ie..who they are, he doesn't have to give an opinion on it. Shure aren't they gonna be named anyway if there were to be 'legal proceedings' against them. Every murder/rape case is reported on in the media, how come they dont all get thrown out because of prejudice from being named?

I'd say the reason they won't give names is because this will push people over the edge and we'll have civil unrest if we know who these people are...

P. Breathnach

Pub07 wrote: »

How would naming them preduce anything ffs. All he has to do is state a fact, ie..who they are, he doesn't have to give an opinion on it. Shure aren't they gonna be named anyway if there were to be 'legal proceedings' against them. Every murder/rape case is reported on in the media, how come they dont all get thrown out because of prejudice from being named?

There is no reasonable chance that a list of names could be published, people would say to themselves "how interesting", and wait quietly for the wheels of justice to turn.

On this board alone there would be enough prejudicial comment to kill off any chance of a prosecution (if, indeed, there is anything to prosecute).

nhughes100

I agree that they should be named under Dail privilege. Two ministers were on the radio this morning(Noel Dempsy and Willie O'Dea aka minister for propaganda) both stating that every member of the cabinet was asked if they had shares in Anglo Irish or if they were part of this Circle. Both stated that as far as they knew no member of FF parlimentary party had/was either. Both emphasised as far as they knew, leaving room to manouver in case someone is telling porky pies.

As usual it's not the scandel that is the problem, it's the covering up of the scandel. Wasn't it Haughey that said, if you own the bank 50 grand you've got a problem, if you own them 5 million they've got the problem. He may be dead but his spirit lives on.

Zynks

This really is doing wonders for the image of Ireland abroad.

Liam Byrne

J. wrote: »

ya im getin that feelin also, its a bit of a gamble, putting 15 people in power now at a time of crisis, with only 2 of the potintial 15 with cabinet experince, will it be worth it? can it be much worse than wats there now?

At least there's a chance that those 15 might actually read reports before wasting €3,000,000,000 of OUR money! :mad:

When Cowen was asked if any members of his cabinet were in the 10, he didn't say no......he said "I don't know who's in it".

Aside from the side-stepping of the question, it shows the level of distrust in his cabinet; surely someone who's 100% certain of their cabinet would be able to categorically state "none of my cabinet would be involved in dodgy moves like that" ?

Oh, I forgot, we're talking FF here :rolleyes:

Akrasia

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is no reasonable chance that a list of names could be published, people would say to themselves "how interesting", and wait quietly for the wheels of justice to turn.

On this board alone there would be enough prejudicial comment to kill off any chance of a prosecution (if, indeed, there is anything to prosecute).

If they could put John Gilligan on trial despite all the media speculation about his criminal past, they can put a banker on trial after his name has been reported in relation to a transaction he was definitely involved with

Pal

I am not in the Golden Circle.

I assure you I have no money.

Please eliminate me from your inquiries.

Next

DublinWriter

The more I'm hearing about this via the jungle-drums, the more alarmed I'm getting.

Obviously I'm not going to mention any names and get boards into trouble, but so far I've heard that one currently sitting TD and two very rich Irish property developers and known FF-bankrollers are wrist deep into this.

If the names get published at the weekend, the Greens will walk within days.

My guess is that senior FF party officials already know who the ten are and are currently staging a massive lockdown on the story. Mary Coughlan today stated that any discussion/naming of the ten would be 'Sub judice'.

I'm no legal expert, but I know for certain that the whole sub-judice argument only comes into play only when there are cases currently before the courts.

Dr Bill Cullen

If this is big enough to bring down the curtain on FF, hopefully we will be so ashamed as a nation that we will end our love affair with nepotism in politics and in all factors of public jobs. And forge a new path where the right people have a fair chance at doing a good job and make it past the mock interview stage

murfie

Did tonight's prime time have anything to add on this? Or is it illegal to do so. I guess it is illegal for a media organisation to announce something like this, but wait its RTE, of course their not going to do that anyway to their FF buddies. :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

So now we have posturing by various politicians over the legality of naming the 10. What is the real issue here? Is it perhaps FF playing party politics over the good of the country, particularly if it is subsequently revealed that one or some of the golden 10 is a FF member? Then the question would be why was the Anglo saved? For the good of the party or the good of the country?

One wonders how much more the Greens ( now a yellow green) can stomach of this, but then again power is its own reward.

Villain

Well its obvious that if a FF TD is one of the ten that the Government will collapse and I think if thats the case the Greens would know and would already have pulled the plug.

I think the problem is the relationships that the members of this golden circle have with FF are not fully obvious and the Greens are trying to find out every possible link before the names are made public to see if they can possibly stay in Government after the details emerge.

Alan Dukes is on the board of Anglo and I'm fairly certain he will know all the dirty linen that is going to be washed so I really doubt FG would have Kenny putting these questions to Cowen without knowing what is coming

P. Breathnach

Villain wrote: »

Alan Dukes is on the board of Anglo and I'm fairly certain he will know all the dirty linen that is going to be washed so I really doubt FG would have Kenny putting these questions to Cowen without knowing what is coming

I doubt if that is the case. The board should not be privy to information about loans made by the bank (except for loans made to directors). Further, it would be highly improper of Dukes to pass any confidential information to anybody, and I think Dukes would do no such thing.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I doubt if that is the case. The board should not be privy to information about loans made by the bank (except for loans made to directors). Further, it would be highly improper of Dukes to pass any confidential information to anybody, and I think Dukes would do no such thing.

Indeed, well said. Dukes is an extremely principled politician, a rare, unseen breed. I suppose many posters here would not have seen his FG Leadership in 87.

A true leader (Dukes) along with McSharry (not Haughey) recovered this State from bankruptcy. Mac the Knife would have resigned in a minority Govt. if the cuts were not brought in. He knew Haughey couldn't risk his Min. for Finance resigning in a Minority Govt. He stood up to Haughey, the only one.

We need statesmen, not self serving Politicians or indeed, Unions.

nesf

Right, I've had to delete two posts for mentioning a specific person in a way that is accusatory.

I will start banning people if they keep doing this. Do not name someone and say I think it is him or anything remotely like this. Seriously, I'm not going to warn about this again.

This is because boards.ie could potentially get into legal trouble if specific people are accused. If people want to start accusing individuals they can start a blog or something and take the legal responsibility onto themselves.

Villain

P. Breathnach in an ideal world I would agree with you, however this is Irish politics, and tbh I would be very worried if the board of Anglo didn't know about this dealing, it wasn't just a loan, it was a loan deal to facilitate 10% of the banks shares, each of the ten had a 1% share holding.

I think it would be very naive to think otherwise giving what has already been revealed

The Raven.

stepbar wrote: »

It's fairly clear off this list, those in FF, who are personally wealthy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0314/1205104772100.html

And TBH I would find it difficult to find one who could give an individual guarentee of 7.5 mil.

Has anyone noticed that the link to the Dail register of interests for 2008 on the quoted site (at the end of the article), won't open? I have tried elswhere and still the same 'error' :rolleyes:!!

Here is the link for 2007:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/publications/RegofInterestsDáil2007.doc

Check it out before it disappears too :eek:!!

Darragh29

The Raven. wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that the link to the Dail register of interests for 2008 on the quoted site (at the end of the article), won't open? I have tried elswhere and still the same 'error' :rolleyes:!!

Here is the link for 2007:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/publications/RegofInterestsDáil2007.doc

Check it out before it disappears too :eek:!!

I searched that document for Anglo Irish bank and it occurs eight times in the document with regard to shareholdings held by TD's. That might not mean too much in the context of this thread as many of them have shareholdings in a wide variety of financial institutions and investment vehicles...

nesf

Darragh29 wrote: »

I searched that document for Anglo Irish bank and it occurs eight times in the document with regard to shareholdings held by TD's. That might not mean too much in the context of this thread as many of them have shareholdings in a wide variety of financial institutions and investment vehicles...

It would not have been unusual for people in 2007 to hold bank shares to be honest about it.

The Raven.

Darragh29 wrote: »

I searched that document for Anglo Irish bank and it occurs eight times in the document with regard to shareholdings held by TD's. That might not mean too much in the context of this thread as many of them have shareholdings in a wide variety of financial institutions and investment vehicles...

That's interesting, nevertheless. I was searching for a more up to date list for 2008, such as the one below, which was at the end of the Irish Times article.

'For full list, see:' www.ireland.com/focus/2008/regofinterests/index.pdf .

FrankGrimes

Is the point about not wanting to undermine any legal action against the 10 just a smokescreen or is there actually genuine grounds for a case against the 10?

On the surface it looks like they are only guilty of availing of a ridiculous offer that offered them potentially massive rewards for only 25% of the related risk. Clearly if they default on the 25%, Anglo has grounds for action to recoup that amount but I don't see how making their names public could undermine that action:

Benefactor 1: "Yes Judge, I owe them €7 million but sure they leaked my name so I'm not paying".
Judge: "Eh, you still have to pay them what you owe them. If you want to take a separate case against them for breach of privacy or whatever, that is your call but that doesn't affect your liability for the agreed amount."

Not sure if the benefactors woudl have the audacity to take such a case, though I guess they obviously may also have the audactity to feel it's ok for the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their failed gamble so ya never know.

Or is there something else to it entirely - i.e. the possibility of this being regarded as market abuse/insider trading not just on the Anglo side but also on the part of the 10? My ire for this sorry mess is mainly directed at Anglo and the regulator and dept of Finance if they had any role in it and I'd like to see legal action being taken against anyone at Anglo that was responsible for it. I would also like to see the 10 being held accountable for their debts and any aspect of insider trading/market abuse that can be allocated to them but I see that as secondary to the primary importance of hodling the institutions to account.

Darragh29

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Is the point about not wanting to undermine any legal action against the 10 just a smokescreen or is there actually genuine grounds for a case against the 10?

On the surface it looks like they are only guilty of availing of a ridiculous offer that offered them potentially massive rewards for only 25% of the related risk. Clearly if they default on the 25%, Anglo has grounds for action to recoup that amount but I don't see how making their names public could undermine that action:

Benefactor 1: "Yes Judge, I owe them €7 million but sure they leaked my name so I'm not paying".
Judge: "Eh, you still have to pay them what you owe them. If you want to take a separate case against them for breach of privacy or whatever, that is your call but that doesn't affect your liability for the agreed amount."

Not sure if the benefactors woudl have the audacity to take such a case, though I guess they obviously may also have the audactity to feel it's ok for the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their failed gamble so ya never know.

Or is there something else to it entirely - i.e. the possibility of this being regarded as market abuse/insider trading not just on the Anglo side but also on the part of the 10? My ire for this sorry mess is mainly directed at Anglo and the regulator and dept of Finance if they had any role in it and I'd like to see legal action being taken against anyone at Anglo that was responsible for it. I would also like to see the 10 being held accountable for their debts and any aspect of insider trading/market abuse that can be allocated to them but I see that as secondary to the primary importance of hodling the institutions to account.

Sure you can see the headlines in 6 months time when the lads in the Golden Circle take the matter up with the High Court after suing Anglo for breach of confidentality, and are awarded another 10 million each in damages because Anglo illegally gave out information about their financial business!!!

sceptre

OK guys, for reasons of legal simplicity I've deleted every post in this thread that had specific speculation about specific people. That's 22 posts.

Speculation's out, sorry.

yes, I can understand that you all probably want to know who but it's not as though any of the posts were pointing at people with anything more than hearsay or speculation to back them up - and apart from possible legal ramifications (posting stuff like "after all, I'm sure X couldn't be involved" isn't a getout when the turn the thread was taking was speculation - lawyers and judges aren't five year olds) there isn't all that much point in making a long list of possibles with nowt as a backup.

I'd like to know who as much as the rest of you. However, on this one I'm erring on the side of caution. Complaints about this decision can be issued here or better again, here if you really feel the need but to be honest, this is one of those occasions where dropping names around as possibilities is both pointless and legally reckless from the point of view of the site.

No more speculation that points at individuals or seeks to lead to speculation that will point at individuals. That's just the way it's going to have to be.

Carry on with the other stuff though.

lostexpectation

hmm nice weather these days eh.

nesf

Gormley thinks they should be named etc: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0219/angloirish.html

Akrasia

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Is the point about not wanting to undermine any legal action against the 10 just a smokescreen or is there actually genuine grounds for a case against the 10?

On the surface it looks like they are only guilty of availing of a ridiculous offer that offered them potentially massive rewards for only 25% of the related risk. Clearly if they default on the 25%, Anglo has grounds for action to recoup that amount but I don't see how making their names public could undermine that action:

Benefactor 1: "Yes Judge, I owe them €7 million but sure they leaked my name so I'm not paying".
Judge: "Eh, you still have to pay them what you owe them. If you want to take a separate case against them for breach of privacy or whatever, that is your call but that doesn't affect your liability for the agreed amount."

Not sure if the benefactors woudl have the audacity to take such a case, though I guess they obviously may also have the audactity to feel it's ok for the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their failed gamble so ya never know.

Exactly, FF are all over the airwaves this morning claiming that they're legally not allowed to divulge 'confidential' information about customers of the bank, but every credit agreement I have ever seen has clearly stated that if you fail to repay the debt, your credit rating will be affected, your name may be released to third parties and can be published in a list of defaulters (such as stubs gazette)

These are 10 people who have just defaulted on loans of 30 million euros each. They have no right to expect that their names are kept confidential.

Also, FF are all over the place this morning saying that international investors need to have confidence that their banking information won't be made public?

Well, they have absolutely nothing to fear if they don't engage in fraudulant transactions and then default on massive loans, and what kind of reputation are we trying to build here? that of the caymen Islands? 'Ask no questions and we'll tell no lies?'