Dole Fraudsters v. Banking Fraudsters

jonsnow

Great letter in the Irish Independent today which sums out how I feel about this issue.Hanafin is starting to beat the drums about going after dole fraudsters and punishing them.While the black economy is a serious issue and is about to become a more serious one, like the letter writer I feel that resources should be put into punishing the insider traders and fraudulent bankers who brought down our economic system before we go after some unemployed carpenter doing the odd job for cash in hand.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/ministers-slip-speaks-volumes-1922438.html

MINISTERS SLIP SPEAKS VOLUMES
Friday October 23 2009
Mary Hanafin, Social and Family Affairs Minister, had the unmitigated gall to state on RTE radio on Wednesday that new regulations will be required to tackle "dole fraud".
Of course, I'd forgotten. Only people on the dole commit fraud or any other kind of financial crime. The chancers who brought this country to its knees are still walking free; cosseted, protected. They are not likely to be on the dole.
The wink and nod has been given. Not one of them (this is a safe prediction) will ever stand in the dock of a courtroom. We know this instinctively.
Yet social welfare payments will be cut, FAS employment schemes chopped -- the kind of communities they serve are, after all, merely dole-fodder, no important people live in them -- and a tax will be put on children's allowances. Who cares?
Their kind will never be captains of industry anyway. They are not well connected and will never have access to influential politicians. They will never provide political donations.
Any of them who grow up healthy enough to join the dole queue will find themselves before the courts immediately if they even think about doing a job on the side. And they won't be appealing twice to the Supreme Court. No bailouts; no banks rushing to support them.
For these forgettables, no lavish expenses and outings to important race meetings and football matches on government jets. No fine wines and five-star hotels in far-away places.
Never have I heard a politician or a government minister outline more lucidly in one remark the true political philosophy of our present Government. It is all about social class and maintaining difference; about those who are not important enough on the social scale to protect and save from poverty and ill-health and who are natural-born criminals anyway. And those who are too big to fail must be propped up, protected, paid for, in case the heavens fall.
This is depraved and immoral political reasoning. This is Versailles-think.
It is time ordinary citizens understood the implications of the nasty truth that Mary Hanafin let slip on radio.
Fred Johnston
Circular Road, Galway

seamus

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thats pretty much what I thought when I read the letter. Does deflecting the blame know no bounds in the current economic climate??

JonathanAnon

tbh, I dont consider it as big a fraud as some of the white collar stuff, like Michael Lynn or builders who got a loan from one bank to get a bigger loan from another.

I think the people should be forced to pay back what they owe the state, and not be given a penny from welfare (whether child, medical card etc etc) until it has been done. Banging them up is pointless, as they are usually not a danger to anybody and this will just cost the state money.

PomBear

Go f**k yourself Hanafin:mad:. The amount taken in Dole Fraud is small change compared to the €6.1 billion lost every year in the under the counter deals. Which i might add that NAMA only makes €5 billion in 11 years. Deals made by plenty of Hanafin's buddys, how dare she come out with this crap.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but can you say what new regulations Mary Hanafin is touting to catch the big-fish fraudsters?

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed 100%; but I think the point is that where NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER is put in place to get the top-level ones (and indeed, bonuses paid and no safeguards put into legislation in order to prevent it happening again) then there is a question to be answered :

Whyever not ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I think the point is that where NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER is put in place to get the top-level ones (and indeed, bonuses paid and no safeguards put into legislation in order to prevent it happening again) then there is a question to be answered :

Whyever not ?

Take the example given by someone else above, about someone taking a loan from one bank in order to get a bigger one from another bank....

What law has been broken, and who needs to do something about it?

If fraud has been committed, isn't it the case that the bank who has been defrauded has to bring charges? We can criticise (and arguably rightly so) the government for bailing out banks and not requiring them to go after such cases, but the sad reality is that a lot of so-called white-collar-crime requires the injured party to press charges. In such cases, we shouldn't expect the government to take the law into its own hands....that would be a cure worse then the poison.

In the case of social welfare, the government is the injured party. They have been defrauded, and so they can do something about it and should be expected to do so.

RedPlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually you are mistaken, such is par for the course in these parts. It's part and parcel of the well-connected, nod and wink culture alluded to in the article.

evercloserunion

Well, we have to do everything we can to prevent fraud and plug the hole in the budget, and doing one thing doesn't prevent us from doing the other. I don't see anything wrong with Hanafin's stance. If it was up to Hanafin to go after both kinds of fraudster and she chose to focus only or mainly on dole fraudsters I could understand where you're coming from. But catching and preventing banking fraud is not Hanafin's job. I suppose that is more Lenihan's area.

Nothing wrong with Hanafin beating her drum on this topic; more power to her, as that is her job. The problem here is that Lenihan is not following suit. He has his own baddies to catch and he's not catching them. From a more general point of view, of course, you could say that the government is wrong to focus on one but not the other but the government is not one monolithic entity; it is composed of several different ministries which, though they communicate and cooperate with one another, are fundamentally distinct institutions.

T-Square

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

They have all the information they need, yet they do nothing.
They have *much* bigger fish to fry than some poor sod trying to do a nixer for cash.

If the gov. weren't so useless, smartcard/swipe card id would be in every wallet in the land, and hence no fraud

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

more benchmarking , this time small time thieves against big time thieves

starbelgrade

jonsnow wrote: »

Their kind will never be captains of industry anyway. They are not well connected and will never have access to influential politicians. They will never provide political donations.

??? Bizarre stuff.

donkey balls

what pisses me off is why is hanafin only getting around to doing this now dole fraud has been going on for years
why was this not tackled when there was low unemployment hence staff should have had more time to investigate bogus claims

Overheal

PomBear wrote: »

Go f**k yourself Hanafin:mad:. The amount taken in Dole Fraud is small change compared to the €6.1 billion lost every year in the under the counter deals. Which i might add that NAMA only makes €5 billion in 11 years. Deals made by plenty of Hanafin's buddys, how dare she come out with this crap.

I'd like to challenge that figure: How much revenue is your Country losing because Dole Fraudsters are Frauding the Dole because they know they can get away with not working, or get away with Working under the table and avoiding a myriad of legitimate taxes and institutions?

I dont think you can really hold a 6b Euro candle up to the loss of all the potential. Instead of Generating more wealth, they're suckling dry what meager wealth you Do have. You can't have a tiger year when you're on the couch.

irish_bob

donkey balls wrote: »

what pisses me off is why is hanafin only getting around to doing this now dole fraud has been going on for years
why was this not tackled when there was low unemployment hence staff should have had more time to investigate bogus claims

because thats not the fianna fail way

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And he has a point ...a moral one, if not a legal one.

While one bad deed doesn't justify another, ostensibly ignoring the one while pursuing the other (the easy target) just smacks of immorailty. But most of all, it creates ill will.

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

I would hold that even if pursuing the weatlhy fraudsters with their expensive lawyers yields zero (or even a loss) in the end, there would be a net gain in that non-habitual piss-takers could be tempted to tow the line and not go out looking after themselves.
Once a society appears openly currupt and unjust, even law abiding people start to wonder if they shouldn't start tweaking the system a bit for their own benefit.

nesf

Eh, you'd swear from some of the posts that going after high level corporate fraud was a simple matter and Lenihan could have had them all in jail months ago if he could be bothered. The simple truth is that a) a lot of what the bankers did was immoral but not strictly illegal and you can't drag someone in front of a judge for the former and b) even when there is fraud, proving it can take years unless the person has been stupid. It's not even the Government's job to deal with these matters! There's a separate branch of law enforcement for this kind of stuff and we do not want politicians to be handling these cases personally. Or at least, no one in their right mind would.

Dole fraud on the other hand is for the most part a trivial thing to prove in comparison. It's completely within the remit of the Department both to pursue and punish these people and to set the fines. Ergo the Minister is completely correct to be focusing on this.

old boy

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

dvpower

old boy wrote: »

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

Nobody in this thread is saying that social welfare recipients should be hit. It is the people that are defrauding social welfare that should be hit. By definition, fraudsters are not entitled to the benefits they claim.

nesf

old boy wrote: »

am i the only one to notice that people cosseted in ivory towers always say hit social welfare recipitients, btw i do not condone fraud, but for some on welfare a days work is the difference between paying a bill or having a service cut off. funerals,weddings baptisms etc all cost a lot.

Well, one way to look at it is that these fraudsters are taking cash that should be going to genuine recipients and their presence increases the overall cost of administering social welfare and by doing so effectively decrease how much real recipients could potentially get.

There's no excuse for it. None. It's ripping off other social welfare recipients as much as it is ripping off working taxpayers. There's a culture in this country of turning a blind eye to the neighbour who does work for cash and draws his dole and such and this is a serious problem.

old boy

well we have hannifin, lenihan clowen, de guy from the centeral bank, mc carthy, do i need to keep going on, they are what i mean by people cosseted in ivory towers, they will never have to go on welfare, index linked pensions, retirement bonuses, the polticians will have several pensions to draw, i an not refering to the vast majority just the tiny minority,

Wheely

seamus wrote: »

How much money is the country going to save by bringing wealthy people to court and fighting their very expensive and very wealthy solicitors? None.

How much money is the country going to save by getting tough on social welfare and catching those who are taking the piss? Lots.

So what-if you can afford an expensive and wealthy solicitor the State shouldn't bother prosecuting? Are you for real? That way it will only ever be the worst off in our society filling our jail cells cos they can't afford good legal representation?

seamus wrote: »

I can't understand this mentality at all. Yes, people breaking laws need to be caught and punished, but when you're talking about policies with national fiscal matters in mind, how is justice even remotely relevant?

I don't know, the investigations into those avoiding tax through offshore accounts and other methods could be said to be about bringing those people to justice while at the same time netting money for the exchequer.

Wheely

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the whole point of the letter is that fruad is NOT fraud. And you can say "EVERYONE" should be pursued and prosecuted but they are not. They just aren't. I think that's the point he's making. The unemployed plasterer will probably be, the banking CEO will not. They neer really are. And who caused more harm in economic terms in this country? Was it the plasterer? Or was it the banker?

You say "Cracking down on corruption across the board is the only way to restore a culture of honesty and integrity to this country"-but that sounds like lip-service in order to defend a crackdown on doel fraudsters?

AM I to believe your serious about cracking downacross the board when the first line of your post referes to any such calls to do so as indignant and infalmmatory- "Oh, those elites. What will they try to get away with next." doesn't sound to me like your too concerned about "across the board" cracking down.......

Wheely

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Brilliant-use a big word and it'll win the argument! Eh, how is the relationship between a govt minister and the irish people a fiducuary one?

Wheely

bonkey wrote: »

Take the example given by someone else above, about someone taking a loan from one bank in order to get a bigger one from another bank....

What law has been broken, and who needs to do something about it?

If fraud has been committed, isn't it the case that the bank who has been defrauded has to bring charges? We can criticise (and arguably rightly so) the government for bailing out banks and not requiring them to go after such cases, but the sad reality is that a lot of so-called white-collar-crime requires the injured party to press charges. In such cases, we shouldn't expect the government to take the law into its own hands....that would be a cure worse then the poison.

In the case of social welfare, the government is the injured party. They have been defrauded, and so they can do something about it and should be expected to do so.

Sorry mate-stick to Conspiracy theories on future will ya? I love everyone rushing to thank such a nonsensical post which obviously has NO comprehension of what regulation is or how it works.

What you are arguing here is that the State has no interest in the regulation of financial services. That the banks should regulate themselves-cos it's only directors and shareholders that have a legitimate interest in a healthy banking system right? Insider trading only affects the two companies that are involved right-it has no bearing on the international stock markets right? Sorry-do think breaches of the Companies Acts are only enforced at the behest of wronged companies? What do you think the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement does-waits by the phone for a bank CEO to call and say "Ive been defrauded-ENFORCE something!" Honestly even a basic knowledge of these things should be required if your going to comment on an issue like this.

Wheely

evercloserunion wrote: »

From a more general point of view, of course, you could say that the government is wrong to focus on one but not the other but the government is not one monolithic entity; it is composed of several different ministries which, though they communicate and cooperate with one another, are fundamentally distinct institutions.

That is essentially making excuses for a situation whereby one govt department doesn't know what the other one is doing. They are not fundamentally distinct institutions and if they are I don't think it's too much to ask that my govt acts as one, instead of a bunch of different departments acting independently of each other.

Wheely

nesf wrote: »

Eh, you'd swear from some of the posts that going after high level corporate fraud was a simple matter and Lenihan could have had them all in jail months ago if he could be bothered. The simple truth is that a) a lot of what the bankers did was immoral but not strictly illegal and you can't drag someone in front of a judge for the former and b) even when there is fraud, proving it can take years unless the person has been stupid. It's not even the Government's job to deal with these matters! There's a separate branch of law enforcement for this kind of stuff and we do not want politicians to be handling these cases personally. Or at least, no one in their right mind would.

Dole fraud on the other hand is for the most part a trivial thing to prove in comparison. It's completely within the remit of the Department both to pursue and punish these people and to set the fines. Ergo the Minister is completely correct to be focusing on this.

Sorry NESF but a lot of what the bankers did wasn't just immoral-it was also illegal. SO they should be prosecuted and thats just a fact. ALso something being difficult is not in and of itself a reason not to do it. The bank guarantee scheme wasn't a particularly easy thing to do but it was done and done swiftly.

Many would tell you how difficult and complex it is to nationalise a bank-it took an afternoon.

NAMA is also pretty complicated that's being done.

So even if "high level corporate fraud" isn't a simple matter, lets just go after it anyway shall we? And how easy is it going to be to sniff out dole fraud anyway? It at least takes a moderate amount of effort to locate.

And it's not the govt's job to do this? WTF is that supposed to mean? A seperate brach of law enforcement-who are paid by and directed by who may I ask? People aren't suggesting Brian Lenihan suit up and kick in Sean Fitzpatrick's door and drag him down to the sherrifs office! But then again I think you knew that.......

nyarlothothep

Its just a case of the externalities not being factored in. You the public will suffer the reprecussions of those poorly justified bailouts but who cares when its all about upholding the status quo. When is the value of social stability exceeded by the value for systematic reform and personal accountability, rather than letting it all be taken care of by people who certainly don't share your interests as the evidence proves already?