The "Golden Circle" - should they be named?

hatrickpatrick

Personally I don't buy the guff about confidence being eroded if the names are published - confidence is already at rock bottom and I would actually imagine that everyone would have far more confidence in the government's credibility if they stood up against corruption and named the 10 rather than taking part in what is beginning to look like a massive cover up. Take Anglo for example - interesting that they were nationalized right before the EGM, at which things would undoubtedly have been uncovered had it gone ahead as planned.

I'm not saying I agree with the conspiracy theories but don't the government realize that by hiding such information they make it so much more believable?

P. Breathnach

First, I wonder how much anything would be improved if they were named (Yes, I'm curious, like most people here, but it's the old conundrum about the public interest and what interests the public).

Second, if identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay; if they can be identified by other means, then let's have the story and satisfy our curiosity.

galwayrush

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time. ****'s going to hit the fan big time soon regarding this, Fraud Squad and CAB hopefully won't be restricted in investigating and prosecuting the culprits, no matter how rich or politically connected they are.

xOxSinéadxOx

yes! they should be named

Sand

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time.

Exactly, and this is what this golden circle are - loan defaulters. If they were Joe Soaps the banks would pursue them to the ends of the earth and blacken their name as best they could. Why can we not even know the name of the people whose debts we are expected to cover?

What are they ashamed of?

SkepticOne

galwayrush wrote: »

Of course they should be named. I'm sure the Anglo Irish Bank had named and shamed loan defaulters in their time. ****'s going to hit the fan big time soon regarding this, Fraud Squad and CAB hopefully won't be restricted in investigating and prosecuting the culprits, no matter how rich or politically connected they are.

I thought it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Financial Regulator that were carrying out the investigations. The Fraud Squad can only get involved if there's a complaint.

thebigcheese22

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay

Yeah coz its not like the ***** in Anglo or Irish Life & Permanent have ever broken banking law!!! :eek:

P. Breathnach

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Yeah coz its not like the ***** in Anglo or Irish Life & Permanent have ever broken banking law!!! :eek:

You seem to disapprove of the idea of them breaking banking law; you should equally disapprove of anybody else breaking banking law.

P. Breathnach

I am sure a list will emerge in due course, by some means or another.

What if there is no prominent politician on it, or any of the big business/property figures who are already thought of as being dodgy? Just ordinary filthy rich people?

Might people be disappointed?

asdasd

Might people be disappointed?

No. I's like to know, regardless of who is in there, why their loans were written off by my newly nationalized bank. And who authorhized that.

marcsignal

xOxSinéadxOx wrote: »

yes! they should be named

i agree

Liam Byrne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You seem to disapprove of the idea of them breaking banking law; you should equally disapprove of anybody else breaking banking law.

Not quite the same, P....

I would view that if the original transaction broke banking law and ethics, THEN the follow-up to THAT transaction should be outside of normal confidentiality....

Basically, if you're playing by the rules, all confidentiality applies, but if you're not, the rule book should be out the window.

I've had the same thought in other areas (e.g. that my comprehensive insurance shouldn't apply if I'm speeding or robbing a bank) and neither of those would do the general public out of 3 billion!

The greater good would be served by outing the scum involved.

And yes, we need to know what con-man wrote off these scum's loans after we paid in the 3 billion to "save" the bank. He should be personally liable for giving every cent of our money back! :mad:

Seth Brundle

Would naming them have any repurcussions on any follow up legalities in terms of getting any money back (if thats even possible)?

cuppa

I want them named,,bet they are in the banking sector or politics or mixed.people in the know ,big cash big banking and laws that they know how to get around.

Name em it the peoples bank now...or is it.

I expect in the next few days they will be named

Banks name people all the time but rarely and usually only when they are brought to court.
It's not usual for it to be done otherwise.

So what needs to happen here is that a law needs to be proven to be broken [which shouldn't be hard] and due process needs to be followed.

Otherwise we may aswell open the floodgates on confidentiality everywhere.

To echo Jim Power speaking on TV3 last night...I'm pretty sure that laws must have been broken if the bank arranged to have a group of people borrow from it to buy what was then €300 million worth of shares behind closed doors without them coming on the market,the express purpose of which must have been to prevent the share price falling.

I'm no expert and am open to correction but that looks to me like fraud on so many levels.

I think the public are right baying for blood when said monies are unlikely to be recovered and are now effectively the taxpayers debt at a time when the house is falling in around us.
But I think they should be baying for the right kind of blood and they should be asking for TOTAL transparency in the investigative process here so as the right thing is done and nothing is shoved under the carpet.

If theres no litigation and no satisfactory paper trail and explanation as to the why's and wherefores of no litigation,I'll happily observe the public political baying for blood in glee and rightly so.

Patience Herd.Patience.

SkepticOne

Deleted User wrote: »

If theres no litigation and no satisfactory paper trail and explanation as to the why's and wherefores of no litigation,I'll happily observe the public political baying for blood in glee and rightly so.

I think the problem is that the public believes there's going to be a cover up and so better get the names out now rather than wait for a trial that may never happen.

Nodin

kbannon wrote: »

Would naming them have any repurcussions on any follow up legalities in terms of getting any money back (if thats even possible)?

All but 75 million of the 300 has been written off. The remainder will probably follow.

Joe Brennan

Thursday February 19 2009

Taoiseach Brian Cowen vowed yesterday that State-owned Anglo Irish Bank will pursue any money lent to the 'golden circle' of high rollers it lined up to buy a 10pc stake in the bank last year.
However, Anglo is expected to confirm in its annual report tomorrow that it may have to write off most, if not all, of the estimated €300m loan it provided the investors, understood to comprise a number of the lender's property developer customers.
Some 75pc of the loans were secured on nothing other than the shares themselves, now virtually worthless. The remaining 25pc -- or €75m -- was covered by other security.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/golden-circle---8364300m-loan--will-be-pursued-1644971.html

Deleted User wrote:

To echo Jim Power speaking on TV3 last night...I'm pretty sure that laws must have been broken if the bank arranged to have a group of people borrow from it to buy what was then €300 million worth of shares behind closed doors without them coming on the market,the express purpose of which must have been to prevent the share price falling.

I'm no expert and am open to correction but that looks to me like fraud on so many levels.

And thats what my rough understanding led me to conclude also. However, the transaction had departmental approval, in the form it was presented to them. which did not mention that Anglo was financing this from its own funds. Its therefore quite possible that the 10 individuals involved had no idea that they were doing anything that might be questionable, whatever about those in the bank who had involved them. Certainly they might claim thus, should any action be taken against them.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0220/1224241489376.html

dave-higgz

Anyone listening to the ****e Ulick McEvady is spewing on Pat Kenny right now (not a regular listener myself, honestly)

He's basically saying to employ Sean Fitzpatrick and Brian Goggin in the govenment as advisers, even though Anglo has fallen because of bad management and then he's gettin all sympathetic towards a friend of his who has lost €15m because of Anglo. Who cares, he obviously has another million more! Some of these guys are so out of touch!!

deadhead13

The attorney general has adviced the government that naming the ten could result in them being sued. But surely this is the very reason why dail privilege exists - TD's and Senators may not be sued for defamation because of any speech in the house.

maggy_thatcher

Surely these 10 guys will have great difficulty in ever getting a loan again? Their credit rating is now "didn't pay off a €30m loan...do not trust"? Or does that only happen to regular people?

SEPT 23 1989

dave-higgz wrote: »

Anyone listening to the ****e Ulick McEvady is spewing on Pat Kenny right now (not a regular listener myself, honestly)

He's basically saying to employ Sean Fitzpatrick and Brian Goggin in the govenment as advisers, even though Anglo has fallen because of bad management and then he's gettin all sympathetic towards a friend of his who has lost €15m because of Anglo. Who cares, he obviously has another million more! Some of these guys are so out of touch!!

i dont think its really sunk in with people like him who live in a different universe that things in this country are in the process are changing forever and the ordinary person sees through their bull**** and wont put up with it

Zynks

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Second, if identifying them involves breaking banking law on the confidentiality of customers' business, then it is too high a price to pay; if they can be identified by other means, then let's have the story and satisfy our curiosity.

The part in bold is where the problem lies. Yes, customer confidentiality should be protected, but maybe this confidentiality doesn't apply to shareholders, specially the ones that possibly acquired the shares through fraudulent means.

deadhead13

In the National Irish Bank v RTE case the argument of bank confidentiality was overruled because it was in the public interest to do so. Same applies here.

Yenwod

In any other country guys like this (and other folk who have been in the media lately) would be marched away in cuffs and made pay for what they've done. And rightly so.

Name, shame, charge and punish!

cdb

We as taxpayers own Anglo and are effectively shareholders in the bank. Should we not therefore be entitled to know about the other shareholders who have defaulted on their loans from our bank.

P. Breathnach

Yenwod wrote: »

In any other country guys like this (and other folk who have been in the media lately) would be marched away in cuffs and made pay for what they've done. And rightly so.

Name, shame, charge and punish!

What crime do you think they have committed?

SkepticOne

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What crime do you think they have committed?

Market manipulation?

Clare_Guy

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

SkepticOne

Clare_Guy wrote: »

How come they were able to name Sean Fitzpatrick are a recipient of dubious loans (which is subject to an investigation now) and yet they can't name these 10 individuals on the pretence that it may affect future investigations?

I think the reason for this is that Fitzpatrick was named before legislation was brought in to prevent further namings.

asdasd

What crime do you think they have committed?

It would be nice to know the reason behind the forgiveness of the loan. In general, as I understand it, forgiven loans are considered income, so let's see if we get tax back.

asdasd

I think the reason for this is that Fitzpatrick was named before legislation was brought in to prevent further namings.

wow.