Dole Fraudsters v. Banking Fraudsters

AlekSmart

Its worth noting that the Investigation Branch of the DFSA was one of the least resourced,poorest and generally snowed-under sections of that Department over the past two decades.

Investigations WERE always carried on,both randomly and on "foot of reports" from the general public.

However in many cases,the amount of Investigation Time required to build up a case to evidential standards simply was not sanctioned by higher management.
This was especially relevant in the light of previous Court judgements,which whilst successful in the Legal sense,rarely resulted in the retrieval of the actual lost amounts of money.

Most likely,some Inspection reports which recommended further action were simply read and filed by the superiors on the basis of maintaining a form of peaceful Status Quo in a certain area or to keep an internal budget under control.

This lack of effective internal control has left us with an entire DSFA system which has become a dei-facto "employment" for many and to which access is seen as a confirmed right,rather than something to be regarded as temporary assistance.

It also needs to be remembered that Investigation Officers of the DFSA would most certainly be required to take risks in the pursuance of their work and most certainly expose themselves to a high level of danger on a daily basis.

It`s only in the past 12 months that we have heard Minister Hanifin refer to the existance of an Investigation Branch and to increasing it`s resources....sadly I feel it`s Too Little-Too Late

bonkey

Wheely wrote: »

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.

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Kama

Strange how the universalist rhetoric of 'all being in it together', 'unacceptable at any level' etc only comes out to play when on the way down, when it was atavistic socialist nonsense on the way up...

nesf wrote:

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.

There is a pervasive and systemic culture of dishonesty and fraud in this country, from our 'clientelistic' crony-capitalists at the top, right the way down to the unemployed. Getting around the system for your own private good has been the dominant social ideology of this country for awhiles now, throughout the entirety of the socioeconomic structure.

Arguably, dole fraudsters have been following the national norms of 'best practice', in imitation of their 'betters'. To have a FF pol complain about such fraud, problem as it may be, rings somewhat hypocritical. White-collar crime has always got the soft touch in this country, whether due to guangxi, or not wanting to scare off business with 'over-regulation', or because they can afford good lawyers.

I'm all for cracking down on fraud across the board; the problem being that one side of the board is anything but 'cracked down on'. A visibly corrupt system breeds an acceptance, if not a legitimation, of further corruption: the bankster beam to the dolester mote.

Wheely

bonkey wrote: »

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

That is what you argued-you argued that financial regulation was a matter for the banks and the banks alone, likening it to an action in tort between two private parties. What do you mean if there was no interst in regulation there'd be no law at all? What the hell does that even mean?

bonkey wrote: »

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

Right........ So who enforces it then if not the govt? The banks? The sector regulates itself? You're repeating the same nonsense I just responded too it seems!

bonkey wrote: »

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Sean Fitzpatrick hid his loans from the bank from the bank for over 8 years at a time when he chief executive and chairperson of the bank!!! Not only are there common law fiduciary duties to the company, there are also statutory ones i.e s.197 CA 1990 not to "knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular". That is only one. One of the most open and shut breaches. SO there's your example. But maybe you don't think it's up to the govt to enforce the Companies Acts-what is it you think the ODCE is there for? Seriously!

Not to mention flagrant breaches of capital maintenance rules in relation to loaning money in order to organise a private shareholding purchase so as to inflate the price of the shares, maybe even manipulation of the stock market. I myslef dont work for the ODCE so I'm probanly not as up on it as I should be if I were. But I know enough about it to comment on it on a message board, you obviously do not.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

No I'm not, nor am I arguing at any point that welfare fraud is not a problem.

I am arguing that if you want a less-systemically corrupt society, where nod-and-a-wink fraud at all levels is seen as a 'win', the concentration on the less well-endowed of fraudsters is anything but a change.

Paying tax, or being prosecuted, is for the 'little people', while a Better Class is 'too big to fall'. My main point, is about how perception affects behavior: if the Great and Good of a society are happy and feel justified with a 'laissez-faire' approach to fraud and corruption, it sends a pretty clear signal to everyone else. We have a historically-lax aproach to enforcing the law on white-collar crime, as a 'pro business policy'.

And no, while I wouldn't suggest the Nigerians took direct lessons from AIB, but I would suggest the '419 man' in all his variants evolves and thrives in systemicaly corrupt states, and such action is seen as, or arguably becomes, more legitimate the more corrupt the environment is.

Chasing welfare fraud is one thing; doing so while adopting a 'kid gloves' attitude to high-level white collar fraud, with a rhetoric of national solidarity? Priceless.

Overheal

Wheely wrote: »

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.

Thats just not how government works. Unless you're in a dictatorship of some description. We have compartmentalized units in all branches.

If there was one single department headed by one or two people, then you would need to corrupt only one or two people to bring down the entire government.

Overheal

bonkey wrote: »

No, that's not what I argued. If there was no interest in regulation, then there would be no law at all in the area.

There are laws, of course. The point I was making is that I don't believe it is the government who is responsible for enforcing them.

If, as you suggest, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, then perhaps you could give an example of a law you believe has been broken, along with an example clearly showing how it is the government who should be chasing it up.

Im not sure where you're coming from here. In the USA at least, its called a Congressional Hearing. And they happen a lot. Federal law is then of course enforced by the FBI or local law enforcement agencies. I forget who's responsible for enforcing things like Insider Trading on wall street, but that is a Federal Entity as well, as far as Im aware.

nesf

Wheely wrote: »

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.......

Ok. First they should be pursued. I don't believe otherwise. Second, it isn't the Government's job to do this anymore than it is their job to individually direct the pursuit of gangland criminals. We have professional law enforcement people for a reason. Politicians just aren't trained or experienced enough to enforce law, we have well paid people to do this on behalf of the State for this exact reason.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

jonsnow wrote: »

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". [/I]
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.

Technically speaking, only people on the dole can actually commit dole fraud.

jonsnow

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Technically speaking, only people on the dole can actually commit dole fraud.

Yeah and technically speaking only bankers can commit banking fraud.I don,t think Fred Johnson advocated going after bankers for commiting dole fraud anywhere in his letter.After all they are not likely to be on the dole in the first place.He did advocate going after bankers who commited financial fraud however.

jonsnow

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To be fair I dont think that in any of his posts Kama equated Ireland with a systematically corrupt state.He was merely pointing out that ignoring corruption in high places was going to lead to a society where there is a trickledown of corruption to every other social class as people grow disillusioned with what they see as an unfair and unbalanced system and begin to cut a few corners.

I,d be interested to see the 2009 results when they come out.Ireland will have fallen a few places I suspect.

jonsnow

nesf wrote: »

Ok. First they should be pursued. I don't believe otherwise. Second, it isn't the Government's job to do this anymore than it is their job to individually direct the pursuit of gangland criminals. We have professional law enforcement people for a reason. Politicians just aren't trained or experienced enough to enforce law, we have well paid people to do this on behalf of the State for this exact reason.

Actually politicians do direct the pursuit of criminals.They tell the law enforcement types who to pursue and prioritise certain groups of criminals over others.If you think that political pressure has no bearing on law enforcement in this country you are being naive.

Its in Shane Ross,s book the Bankers that when Fingers son sent that email around the UK touting for business based on the Irish governments banking guarantee it made Lenihan look bad with the british.He rang the financial Regulator and read him the riot act.Hey presto for the first time ever a banker is sanctioned and fined.If Lenihan hadn,t been embarrassed its a pretty safe bet the Financial Regulator would have done sweet FA.

waffleman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As soon as it's announced that "Everyone who commits fraud will be pursued and prosecuted" I'm all for it - not a problem.

nesf

jonsnow wrote: »

Actually politicians do direct the pursuit of criminals.They tell the law enforcement types who to pursue and prioritise certain groups of criminals over others.If you think that political pressure has no bearing on law enforcement in this country you are being naive.

Its in Shane Ross,s book the Bankers that when Fingers son sent that email around the UK touting for business based on the Irish governments banking guarantee it made Lenihan look bad with the british.He rang the financial Regulator and read him the riot act.Hey presto for the first time ever a banker is sanctioned and fined.If Lenihan hadn,t been embarrassed its a pretty safe bet the Financial Regulator would have done sweet FA.

You misinterpret what I was saying. It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases since they don't have the necessary understanding of procedure etc in order to catch criminals be they white collar or whatever.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

You misinterpret what I was saying. It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases since they don't have the necessary understanding of procedure etc in order to catch criminals be they white collar or whatever.

That'd be somewhat acceptable, but when they don't even legislate to make sure that many white-collar things are recognised as crimes, while legislating loads of things that are easier to "catch", then of course normal people feel hard done by.

And then there is the fact that - if and when caught on the "ordinary" crimes - the powerful are treated differently.

As an example, if an ordinary Joe Soap was so drunk that he drove up the wrong side of a dual-carriageway, endangering lives, what do you think the outcome would be ? And can you remember the outcome for a similar situation ?

Kama

Especially with the deregulative approach to the finanical systems, certain acts cannot be crimes, because their context, rather than legal or illegal, might be best characterized as alegal, following the same move as Soros with respect to morality in markets. That which is not forbidden, is kosher. After all, we can't regulate, that would just create loopholes, we can't go after them legally, they have good lawyers, and much as with taxation, we don't want to be too hard on them, since they are footloose.

And so (conveniently) on...

nesf wrote:

It's not that politicians don't have influence over who is targeted, it's that they don't micromanage these cases

The example quoted seems quite micro in its management, but the more relevant direction would be the macromanagement: the construction of what is a 'crime', either in strictly legal or in more perception-based terms. Simply, the crimes of the powerless are crimes, and they must be pursued, while the crimes of the powerful require a different, lighter approach.

In tighter terms, taking the numerous examples of actual illegal behavior, shall we count the prosecutions? Law, again, is for the 'little people'.

And in the case of Joe Soap, did he not threaten the Garda present, saying he would destroy his career? Or was that a different Joe?


And yes Jon, that was my meaning, with the possible slippage that i consider our culture to have systemic corruption, which is slightly different to systematic. And I would expect our position to slip considerably, especially as TI's metric are based on perceptions of corruption. Our faux-corporatist clientelistic system isn't looking too hot to observers, and our actions have done nothing to restore confidence in the transparency and integrity of our political system.

But sure don't worry, we'll distract people by talking about how 'tha farraners' are stealing our welfare.

Flamed Diving

FAO: Wheely.

Executive =/= Judiciary

End.

Kev_ps3

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah but in this country we turn a blind eye to the 'people who rob over 500k' completely. Thats what he was on about. Of course people who illegally clam dole should be prosecuted.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The example quoted seems quite micro in its management, but the more relevant direction would be the macromanagement: the construction of what is a 'crime', either in strictly legal or in more perception-based terms. Simply, the crimes of the powerless are crimes, and they must be pursued, while the crimes of the powerful require a different, lighter approach.

The biggest issue is that new legislation cannot be retrospective (and should not be!) meaning that if someone is smart enough they can evade the law and all you can do about it is ensure that the loophole is closed so others cannot do the same.

Daithinski

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the OP's point was that this is not happening. Unfortunately Fraud isn't fraud in Ireland its only fraud if you are low down the socio-economic pecking order.

Its like the saying kill a man and you're a murderer, kill many you're a conqueror. Don't pay 100 quid go to court, don't pay a billion quid, get let off the hook.

This is what the Irish people are seeing in the media every day.

Things like 230 million is too expensive to pay the social welfare Christmas bonus. Funnily enough this is almost exactly the amount the admin for NAMA will cost every year for the next ten years.

Peter is being robbed to pay Paul, where Peter is on a state pension and Paul is a barrister/accountant being paid a small fortune to administer the bailouts to the banks/developers.

The perception is in this country that the political class have told the ordinary Irish citizen who is in financial difficulty to go and eat cake.

old boy

this is all fine and good waffleing on here on boards, an american cop offered his services and that of 32 hand picked officers FREE of charge to clean up this country our last t-shock showed him the finger and told him to swivel, people wondered why he did so it now seem very obivious, the last time i was over there, cops i know were compleatly BAFFELED by ahernes refusal, i told them not to be, as it was not drug dealers and bank robbers that were the biggest threat to ireland. they understand graft over there, as they invented it, but me thinks finna fail have perfected it.