Sean Fitz arrested?

rightwingdub

I wonder how many of the head crooks in the banks will be charged and also what about the politicians.

kippy

rightwingdub wrote: »

I wonder how many of the head crooks in the banks will be charged and also what about the politicians.

No one really knows as of yet.
Its highly unlikely any of the political elite will get charge with anything unless it's been proven that they've broken a law of some sort.

Biggins

rightwingdub wrote: »

I wonder how many of the head crooks in the banks will be charged and also what about the politicians.

Sadly, don't hold your breath for that to happen or connections even be investigated.
The public would be so lucky!
(I'd love to be proved wrong)

pah

Looking through the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 I can see a number of possible offences.

Section 6


Making gain or causing loss by deception.


6.—(1) A person who dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another, by any deception induces another to do or refrain from doing an act is guilty of an offence.



(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.




Section 10

False accounting.




10.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another—


(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any document made or required for any accounting purpose,


(b) fails to make or complete any account or any such document, or


(c) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such document, which to his or her knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.


(2) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as falsifying an account or other document if he or she—


(a) makes or concurs in making therein an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or


(b) omits or concurs in omitting a material particular therefrom.


(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.




Either of these offences warrant arrest and detention for the purpose of questioning.

Mr. Incognito

Basically he was hiding things from the auditors.

Called teeming or lading or lapping it means that he took out loans from the bank.

Lets say the audit was December 1-14 November 30th he transfered these loans to his buddy Fingleton over in Irish Permanent. Auditors see these on the books and think that the bank is owed money from Irish Permanent- nothing wrong there. Audit concludes and then on December 15th he transfers the loans back to himself after signing false declarations as to Directors interests.

If that's not illegal I don't know what is.

Cyrus

kippy wrote: »

I understand there are three different aspects to Anglo that the authoraties are investigating:
1. Sean Fitz's personal loan of up to 117 million euro at one stage which I believe was transfered between various banks.
2. The transfer of circa 7.5 billion off the balance sheet of Anglo before audits and transfer back in after audits. (not entirely sure what this was but anyway)
3. The "golden circle" of ten who were approached by Anglo and lent money to buy angle shares.

I beleve fitzpatrick will be questioned about all three aspects as he possibly would be at the center of 2 and 3 as well as one.
Issue one appear to be an undeclared interest or something similiar which probably goes against corporate law. If it wasnt such a big deal why transfer the loans in the first place? There was obviously something underhanded that he wanted to hide.
Issue two looks to be at best "massaging the figures" and as such misleading shareholders and stakeholders in the bank. I would hope this is against some company law.
Issue three is very blatently some form of insider trading, never mind the absurdness of the bank approaching and lending money to these guys in the first place.
All of the above is roughly correct in my believe and this questioning isnt just about issue 1.


I hope that people do go to jail over what has happened, but more importantly I hope we've all learned not to trust these guys so much ever again.
Fitz will no doubt hire the best legal minds and get off scot free as will a number of these guys although one has to has how can the guy afford the best legal aid when he is 70 million or so in debt...............will free legal aid help him, or will he use money he technically owes, us, the taxpayer, to get himself out of a pickle?

do you have a source for no 2 above, its not something that i recall (altho i may be mistaken)

also what happened with the golden circle wasnt insider trading unless there were in receipt of price sensitive information

Cyrus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Basically he was hiding things from the auditors.

Called teeming or lading or lapping it means that he took out loans from the bank.

Lets say the audit was December 1-14 November 30th he transfered these loans to his buddy Fingleton over in Irish Permanent. Auditors see these on the books and think that the bank is owed money from Irish Permanent- nothing wrong there. Audit concludes and then on December 15th he transfers the loans back to himself after signing false declarations as to Directors interests.

If that's not illegal I don't know what is.

taking out loans from the bank isnt illegal,

his practice of hiding may not technically be illegal either and he didnt sign any false declarations because he owed the money to IL&P not anglo.

The reality was that he owed it to anglo, but again id imagine this was done more to circumvent disclosure requirements as it was immaterial to the results of the bank.

Cyrus

pah wrote: »

Looking through the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 I can see a number of possible offences.

Section 6


Making gain or causing loss by deception.






Section 10

False accounting.




10.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she dishonestly, with the intention of making a gain for himself or herself or another, or of causing loss to another—

thats all fine, but what gain was there to him? he borrowed money and he owed it to the bank, where is the fraudulent gain?

dan_d

It may not be illegal per se, but it's certainly immoral and unethical. I am ever hopeful...while we may not be in the habit of convicting people for this kind of thing, hopefully we're about to set a precedent. Everything changes....and with any luck we might be about to see the start of some changes.There's no point in writing the whole thing off before it even starts.

I also hope there are some developers and lenders feeling very uncomfortable right about now.....

Mr. Incognito

aking out loans from the bank isnt illegal,

his practice of hiding may not technically be illegal either and he didnt sign any false declarations because he owed the money to IL&P not anglo.

The reality was that he owed it to anglo, but again id imagine this was done more to circumvent disclosure requirements as it was immaterial to the results of the bank.

Come off it- are you his golf buddy or something?

He mislead shareholders as to the extent of his interests whilst serving as a director.

117 Million appropriated by a director who is in no position to pay them back affects the results of the bank and it's bottom line.

Saying it was not a false declaration is a joke- do you have any knowledge of law. Courts will look through to the substance of the transaction and determine the true beneficial owner.

jmayo

rovert wrote: »

Fingleton must be sweating bricks

Yeah right. :rolleyes:
You do know that fingers had a habit of giving out extra generous loans to politicans, journos, etc.
Always handy to have friends in high places as well as low places. :rolleyes:

Cyrus wrote: »

in that respect i would doubt that the practice was illegal, unethical definately, dishonest definately, will he be charged with an offence for it? i wouldnt have thought so.

The hiding of his loans (at their peak they were 129m) wouldnt have done anything to improve anglos seemingly impressive results at those times, it was done more to circumvent disclosure requirements re related parties etc.

AFAIK in normal circumstances concealing director loans is in breach of company law, but for some reason this is debated in this case.
Also using loans from company to facilitate purchase of the companies own shares is considered illegal in lots of western capitalist countries.
And that little scenario did involve 10 high net worth individuals who were primary customers of the bank.

Some of this 10 are responsible for the initial 16 billion of loans that are being bought by the Irish taxpayers through the NAMA vehicle.
Now what was it you were saying about our problems not being down to certain individuals ?
Then of course we have the is it a deposit or not which would be considered illegally misleading investors, the stock market and indeed shareholders in most countries.

Cyrus wrote: »

and thats the extent of our problems? i would have thought the annual public sector wage bill is of greater concern

Trying to deflect attention from a mess that could cost us a number of years current deficits ? :rolleyes:

Cyrus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Come off it- are you his golf buddy or something?

He mislead shareholders as to the extent of his interests whilst serving as a director.

117 Million appropriated by a director who is in no position to pay them back affects the results of the bank and it's bottom line.

Saying it was not a false declaration is a joke- do you have any knowledge of law. Courts will look through to the substance of the transaction and determine the true beneficial owner.

like i said i am no apologist for the bankers, however i am dealing with simple facts, it irks me when people, with very little knowledge of the legality or illegality of what went on, demand that all the bankers are jailed and all the developers are jailed.

quite simply to goto jail you have to commit a crime, as of yet i havent seen any evidence of a crime committed that would warrant a jail sentence.

i am not saying that it wont happen but on the evidence so far it is very unlikely

re the loans, at the time he owed the 117m id imagine he felt that he was in a position to pay it back, and the loans would have been secured on assets that at the time were worth the value of the loans,

now it didnt turn out that way, but if we are sending him to jail for that anyone who bought property in the last 3 years might aswell present at their local gardai station too.

tipperaryboy

About time that he was arrested.

fontanalis

Isn't there a chance that there may be other issues?

Mr. Incognito

ike i said i am no apologist for the bankers, however i am dealing with simple facts, it irks me when people, with very little knowledge of the legality or illegality of what went on, demand that all the bankers are jailed and all the developers are jailed.

quite simply to goto jail you have to commit a crime, as of yet i havent seen any evidence of a crime committed that would warrant a jail sentence.

i am not saying that it wont happen but on the evidence so far it is very unlikely

re the loans, at the time he owed the 117m id imagine he felt that he was in a position to pay it back, and the loans would have been secured on assets that at the time were worth the value of the loans,

now it didnt turn out that way, but if we are sending him to jail for that anyone who bought property in the last 3 years might aswell present at their local gardai station too.

There have been quotes on this page showing where laws have been broken.

He had fidicuary duties to the bank and shareholders- these have certainly been broken. It's one thing to take out loans- quite another to conceal them

Anyway- we don't have all the facts. The DPP does and feels that there is a case. I look forward to seeing what he is eventually charged with and we can revisit this.

ei.sdraob

Cyrus wrote: »

taking out loans from the bank isnt illegal,

his practice of hiding may not technically be illegal either and he didnt sign any false declarations because he owed the money to IL&P not anglo.

The reality was that he owed it to anglo, but again id imagine this was done more to circumvent disclosure requirements as it was immaterial to the results of the bank.

actually him being a director at time, it was illegal, especially considering the amounts involved

see Companies Act

Cyrus

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah right. :rolleyes:
You do know that fingers had a habit of giving out extra generous loans to politicans, journos, etc.
Always handy to have friends in high places as well as low places. :rolleyes:



AFAIK in normal circumstances concealing director loans is in breach of company law, but for some reason this is debated in this case.
Also using loans from company to facilitate purchase of the companies own shares is considered illegal in lots of western capitalist countries.
And that little scenario did involve 10 high net worth individuals who were primary customers of the bank.

Some of this 10 are responsible for the initial 16 billion of loans that are being bought by the Irish taxpayers through the NAMA vehicle.
Now what was it you were saying about our problems not being down to certain individuals ?
Then of course we have the is it a deposit or not which would be considered illegally misleading investors, the stock market and indeed shareholders in most countries.



Trying to deflect attention from a mess that could cost us a number of years current deficits ? :rolleyes:

we can blame developers and bankers all we want, the fact is the country is running at a sizeable current deficit, i.e current expenditure is higher than current income, NAMA or no NAMA that problem would still exist,

NAMA is another royal pain in the backside, but unfortunately our problems run a lot deeper.

Re the golden circle, it could well be illegal here to advance loans to buy shares, im not sure, is there evidence that seanie was behind this himself? surely the rest of the board are involved if so?

andrewdcs

a fraud is a fraud is a fraud is a fraud.... Fitzpatrick is Madoff, Anglo is Enron and Ireland is the old sow.



Off to the pub for celebratory curers! Nice one Garda, whoever you were, I though yet another 18th March would be remembered only for its hangover.

Three cheers for Seanie!

Cyrus

ei.sdraob wrote: »

actually him being a director at time, it was illegal, especially considering the amounts involved

see Companies Act

him taking loans from the bank is illegal?

can you tell me the section of the companies act that makes it illegal for a director to take loans from a company?

jmayo

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Basically he was hiding things from the auditors.

Called teeming or lading or lapping it means that he took out loans from the bank.

Lets say the audit was December 1-14 November 30th he transfered these loans to his buddy Fingleton over in Irish Permanent. Auditors see these on the books and think that the bank is owed money from Irish Permanent- nothing wrong there. Audit concludes and then on December 15th he transfers the loans back to himself after signing false declarations as to Directors interests.

If that's not illegal I don't know what is.

I do wonder if those things were spotted by the auditors because I have heard of auditors in small non banking companies trawling through the director loans to see the history.
Yet we are expected to believe auditors would not do the same when it was an actual bank ?

Cyrus wrote: »

do you have a source for no 2 above, its not something that i recall (altho i may be mistaken)

also what happened with the golden circle wasnt insider trading unless there were in receipt of price sensitive information

It was misleading the markets by propping up the shareprice using the companies own money. :rolleyes:
In most markets in non banana republics that is very serious. :mad:
They lent the money to make sure the shareprice didn't take a hit and they used the shares as collateral in the process.

Nice that you use the exact definition of insider dealing to obfuscate the argument.

Cyrus wrote: »

taking out loans from the bank isnt illegal,

his practice of hiding may not technically be illegal either and he didnt sign any false declarations because he owed the money to IL&P not anglo.

The reality was that he owed it to anglo, but again id imagine this was done more to circumvent disclosure requirements as it was immaterial to the results of the bank.

His personal loans were involving Irish Nationwide, unless with your supposed superior knowledge you know different ?
Ehh he might have sigend off on the audited accounts, he did have to stand over them in the yearly accounts.

Cyrus wrote: »

like i said i am no apologist for the bankers, however i am dealing with simple facts, it irks me when people, with very little knowledge of the legality or illegality of what went on, demand that all the bankers are jailed and all the developers are jailed.

quite simply to goto jail you have to commit a crime, as of yet i havent seen any evidence of a crime committed that would warrant a jail sentence.

i am not saying that it wont happen but on the evidence so far it is very unlikely

re the loans, at the time he owed the 117m id imagine he felt that he was in a position to pay it back, and the loans would have been secured on assets that at the time were worth the value of the loans,

now it didnt turn out that way, but if we are sending him to jail for that anyone who bought property in the last 3 years might aswell present at their local gardai station too.

Yeah you are no apologist for the banks or bankers :rolleyes:

I find it so ironic that you complain about people jumping to wrong conclusions and you claiming you deal with simple facts, when you can't even get those right.
His personal loans so far have only involved michael fingers over in Irish Nationwide.
They have not involved IL&P.

The IL&P involvement is serious also and is what really disillusioned investors in irish banks, in that they helped falsify the deposit base of Anglo, which in most countries would be a very serious matter.

tfitzgerald

i can not get excited about this crook getting arrested even if he is found guilty of anything he will probably get he's own cell and beds and tvs ect in whatever open jail they put him in unlike bernie maddox who is now in the hospital wing of the jail he is in

Cyrus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

There have been quotes on this page showing where laws have been broken.

i do too, there is a lot of speculation in here about laws he may have broken and people are assuming laws have been broken, but a lot of it is a desire to see him in jail as opposed to any clear knowledge of the laws that he is supposed to have broken

pah

Cyrus wrote: »

thats all fine, but what gain was there to him? he borrowed money and he owed it to the bank, where is the fraudulent gain?

(2) For the purposes of this Act a person deceives if he or she—

(a) creates or reinforces a false impression, including a false impression as to law, value or intention or other state of mind,

(b) prevents another person from acquiring information which would affect that person's judgement of a transaction, or

(c) fails to correct a false impression which the deceiver previously created or reinforced or which the deceiver knows to be influencing another to whom he or she stands in a fiduciary or confidential relationship,

and references to deception shall be construed accordingly.

(3) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) “gain” and “loss” are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, whether any such gain or loss is temporary or permanent,

(b) “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not, and

(c) “loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.



I would argue that Fitzpatrick gained in money and other property through his deception. He had 170m in loans that wasn't stuffed in his matress. I would think most of it was in property and with all the book fiddling he was doing I have no doubt he dishonestly appropriated that 170m in loans.

kippy

Cyrus wrote: »

do you have a source for no 2 above, its not something that i recall (altho i may be mistaken)

also what happened with the golden circle wasnt insider trading unless there were in receipt of price sensitive information

http://www.rte.ie/business/2009/0213/ilp2.html
Looking at the report I seem to have gotten the details wrong but basicilly there were significant money transfers between ILP and Anglo at varying times.

Price "sensitive" information - while that may be the true definition of insider trading, I suspect the artificial propping up of the share price of the bank may be against trading rules also.
Also, I do suspect that the bank contacting these people in the first place may have been against certain rules.

ei.sdraob

Cyrus wrote: »

him taking loans from the bank is illegal?

him taking loans as a director of the bank is illegal

Cyrus wrote: »

can you tell me the section of the companies act that makes it illegal for a director to take loans from a company?

as mentioned earlier in thread yes its illegal to be taking loans above certain amounts depending on company

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0033/sec0031.html

section 31 for one, ask any accountant for more (there's a forum here on boards too)

and that the Act of 1990

the recent act of 2009 goes much further when it comes to directors and company loans

im not a lawyer nor accountant but thats how it was explained to me (me being a director myself) by accountant

Laminations

Cyrus wrote: »

do you have a source for no 2 above, its not something that i recall (altho i may be mistaken)

also what happened with the golden circle wasnt insider trading unless there were in receipt of price sensitive information

On 12 February 2009, details of a further controversial transaction which had the effect of misrepresenting the end-of-year accounts of Anglo-Irish Bank came into the public domain. Anglo-Irish Bank lent €4bn to Irish Life & Permanent (IL&P) for 1 day by way of inter-bank loan, and a subsidiary of Irish Life placed a deposit of a similar amount with Anglo, which was recorded as a customer deposit. Following a discussion with the Minister for Finance, a board meeting of IL&P accepted the resignation of two senior IL&P executives.

Or see here

I dont know what your angle is but it is quite sickening that you are defending the man

Cyrus

jmayo wrote: »

It was misleading the markets by propping up the shareprice using the companies own money. :rolleyes:
In most markets in non banana republics that is very serious. :mad:
They lent the money to make sure the shareprice didn't take a hit and they used the shares as collateral in the process.

Nice that you use the exact definition of insider dealing to obfuscate the argument.


I find it so ironic that you complain about people jumping to wrong conclusions and you claiming you deal with simple facts, when you can't even get those right.
His personal loans so far have only involved michael fingers over in Irish Nationwide.

whic definition of insider trading would you rather use, one that you make up?

sorry, i meant irish nationwide not IL&P, excuse the mistake, what was your point?

Cyrus

ei.sdraob wrote: »

him taking loans as a director of the bank is illegal




as mentioned earlier in thread yes its illegal to be taking loans above certain amounts depending on company

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0033/sec0031.html

section 31 for one, ask any accountant for more (there's a forum here on boards too)

and that the Act of 1990

the recent act of 2009 goes much further when it comes to directors and company loans

im not a lawyer nor accountant but thats how it was explained to me (me being a director myself) by accountant

okays, maybe you could have read the section in qn, do you think €100m was more than 10% of the banks reported assets at the time?

31.—(1) Except as provided by sections 32 to 37, a company shall not—

[GA] ( a ) make a loan or a quasi-loan to a director of the company or of its holding company or to a person connected with such a director;

32.—(1) Section 31 shall not prohibit a company from entering into an arrangement with a director or a person connected with a director if—

[GA] ( a ) the value of the arrangement, and

[GA] ( b ) the total amount outstanding under any other arrangements entered into by the company with any director of the company, or any person connected with a director, together, is less than ten per cent of the company's relevant assets.

Cyrus

Laminations wrote: »

Or see here

I dont know what your angle is but it is quite sickening that you are defending the man

where have i defended him?

Laminations

Cyrus wrote: »

i do too, there is a lot of speculation in here about laws he may have broken and people are assuming laws have been broken, but a lot of it is a desire to see him in jail as opposed to any clear knowledge of the laws that he is supposed to have broken

And do you have a desire to see him in jail?

ei.sdraob

Cyrus wrote: »

okays, maybe you could have read the section in qn, do you think €100m was more than 10% of the banks reported assets at the time?

31.—(1) Except as provided by sections 32 to 37, a company shall not—

[GA] ( a ) make a loan or a quasi-loan to a director of the company or of its holding company or to a person connected with such a director;

32.—(1) Section 31 shall not prohibit a company from entering into an arrangement with a director or a person connected with a director if—

[GA] ( a ) the value of the arrangement, and

[GA] ( b ) the total amount outstanding under any other arrangements entered into by the company with any director of the company, or any person connected with a director, together, is less than ten per cent of the company's relevant assets.

as i said im not a lawyer and neither i have exact figures (nor you for that matter)

but bypassing audits and moving such large sums around is dodgy

also remember that loans would be seen as assets hence distorting the balance and once again interfering with an audit

god knows what other things the investigators found,

if there was no suspicion and nothing against him then he wouldnt be arrested and questioned would be?

IrishTonyO

Cyrus wrote: »

like i said i am no apologist for the bankers, however i am dealing with simple facts, it irks me when people, with very little knowledge of the legality or illegality of what went on, demand that all the bankers are jailed and all the developers are jailed.

Does it irk you that people like yourself do not even know the 3 areas being investigated and still comment?
The personal loans are a minor issue here compared to the deposit transfers of €7.45 billion, and also the share deal for the golden circle.

pah

He's being detained under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984. This means he has been arrested on suspicion of comitting an indictable offence (5 years or more in prison)

The most likely offences are from the Theft and Fraud offences Act I don't know much about company law.

You can be sure that whatever evidence the arresting gardaí had it was pretty solid and wouldn't be done on a whim with a case so big and sensitive.

ei.sdraob

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Does it irk you that people like yourself do not even know the 3 areas being investigated and still comment?
The personal loans are a minor issue here compared to the deposit transfers of €7.45 billion, and also the share deal for the golden circle.

he probably doesnt pay any tax

or realize that his money is being poured into Anglo to patch a hole created by Sean and Circle Ltd

Cyrus

Laminations wrote: »

And do you have a desire to see him in jail?

if he has committed a criminal offence and is successfully prosecuted then he should go to jail.

however the man on the street wants to blame him for the countries downfall and wants to see him in jail for that, there are 100 other factors why we are in the mess we are in

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as i said im not a lawyer and neither i have exact figures (nor you for that matter)

but bypassing audits and moving such large sums around is dodgy

also remember that loans would be seen as assets hence distorting the balance and once again interfering with an audit

god knows what other things the investigators found,

if there was no suspicion and nothing against him then he wouldnt be arrested and questioned would be?

no we did have the exact figures, we know the amount of the loan and we know the banks net assets from the annual reports, the net assets of the bank were 3.6bn as reported, 100m is relatively immaterial in the context of the balance sheet.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Does it irk you that people like yourself do not even know the 3 areas being investigated and still comment?
The personal loans are a minor issue here compared to the deposit transfers of €7.45 billion, and also the share deal for the golden circle.

no i rarely irk myself

i had forgetten about the IL&P, but again i would suggest that this situation implicates the whole board of management of Anglo and not just seanie

Cyrus

ei.sdraob wrote: »

he probably doesnt pay any tax

or realize that his money is being poured into Anglo to patch a hole created by Sean and Circle Ltd

id suggest that you refrain from making inflammatory and defamatory comments like that

again i repeat that im not an apologist for any of the bankers, but i will be very interested to see what any of them go to jail for if anything

i have made some arguments in which holes have been picked and i have picked holes in arguments made by others

it remains to be seen who goes to jail for all of this

IrishTonyO

Cyrus wrote: »

if he has committed a criminal offence and is successfully prosecuted then he should go to jail.

however the man on the street wants to blame him for the countries downfall and wants to see him in jail for that, there are 100 other factors why we are in the mess we are in

A lot of the men on the street would like to see him jailed because of these practises, as now the tax payer have already paid 10's of billions and a lot more to come, as a result of these practises. If the 7.45 billion deposit transfer did not happen and the true balance sheet was known, the bank would have been bust a long time ago. This is fraud pure and simple and allowed the bank to continue on using these practices, costing all of us a lot more money in the long run.

pah

Cyrus wrote: »

okays, maybe you could have read the section in qn, do you think €100m was more than 10% of the banks reported assets at the time?

31.—(1) Except as provided by sections 32 to 37, a company shall not—

[GA] ( a ) make a loan or a quasi-loan to a director of the company or of its holding company or to a person connected with such a director;

32.—(1) Section 31 shall not prohibit a company from entering into an arrangement with a director or a person connected with a director if—

[GA] ( a ) the value of the arrangement, and

[GA] ( b ) the total amount outstanding under any other arrangements entered into by the company with any director of the company, or any person connected with a director, together, is less than ten per cent of the company's relevant assets.

Cyrus you've gone from someone who's only interested in facts to borderline admirer of seanie and now you're actively defending him

Cyrus

IrishTonyO wrote: »

A lot of the men on the street would like to see him jailed because of these practises, as now the tax payer have already paid 10's of billions and a lot more to come, as a result of these practises. If the 7.45 billion deposit transfer did not happen and the true balance sheet was known, the bank would have been bust a long time ago. This is fraud pure and simple and allowed the bank to continue on using these practices, costing all of us a lot more money in the long run.

did that transfer not happen in 2008?

Laminations

Cyrus wrote: »

i had forgetten about the IL&P, but again i would suggest that this situation implicates the whole board of management of Anglo and not just seanie

True that. And I wont be happy with just Seanie going to jail, more people need to be brought to justice under this investigation.

And you are right (about me anyway), the legality or illegality of the whole thing no longer matters to me, I have a similar view towards the behaviour of Bertie Ahern. Knowing what I do, I dont need to wait for a tribunal to report or a court to rule. Their behaviour was wholly inappropriate and they should be punished for it. There is the letter of the law and then there is right and wrong. Is what Seanie did right (not legal or illegal, just right) in your eyes? It irks me when people argue that blatant wrongdoing may 'technically' not be illegal.

pah

I too am irked

Cyrus

pah wrote: »

Cyrus you've gone from someone who's only interested in facts to borderline admirer of seanie and now you're actively defending him

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

Laminations

Cyrus wrote: »

id suggest that you refrain from making inflammatory and defamatory comments like that

again i repeat that im not an apologist for any of the bankers, but i will be very interested to see what any of them go to jail for if anything

i have made some arguments in which holes have been picked and i have picked holes in arguments made by others

it remains to be seen who goes to jail for all of this

The second emboldened part would suggest you are an apologist for the bankers, playing the part of the defence in this debate. I'd imagine if this comes to court we'll have a similar to and fro between prosecution and defence, each poking holes in the others arguments.

IrishTonyO

Cyrus wrote: »

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

Having the loans was not illegal however, hiding them and not registering them as interests was

Pride Fighter

Firing squad is too kind for people like Fitzpatrick, Fingers and Bertie.

Death by torture for those lowlifes.

Cyrus

Laminations wrote: »

True that. And I wont be happy with just Seanie going to jail, more people need to be brought to justice under this investigation.

And you are right (about me anyway), the legality or illegality of the whole thing no longer matters to me, I have a similar view towards the behaviour of Bertie Ahern. Knowing what I do, I dont need to wait for a tribunal to report or a court to rule. Their behaviour was wholly inappropriate and they should be punished for it. There is the letter of the law and then there is right and wrong. Is what Seanie did right (not legal or illegal, just right) in your eyes? It irks me when people argue that blatant wrongdoing may 'technically' not be illegal.

to be honest my interest is in the debate here, and im interested to see how it all pans out,

of course what he did was wrong, the hiding the loans, the golden circle, the il&p deposits the whole thing stinks,

all im saying is that he may not necessarily goto jail for it, the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong.

Cyrus

Laminations wrote: »

The second emboldened part would suggest you are an apologist for the bankers, playing the part of the defence in this debate. I'd imagine if this comes to court we'll have a similar to and fro between prosecution and defence, each poking holes in the others arguments.

im just taking part in the debate there needs to be some balance

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Having the loans was not illegal however, hiding them and not registering them as interests was

thats the rub tho isnt it, im not sure that it is, it was certainly reported at the time that it wasnt:

Ireland's financial regulator said: "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the financial regulator was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate. As a result, we advised Anglo Irish to ensure that these loans are reported in the annual accounts for 2008."

Laminations

Cyrus wrote: »

all im saying is that he may not necessarily goto jail for it, the law doesnt always deal in right and wrong.

Well on this front I wholly agree with you. And I think unfortunately it is unlikely he will go to jail for any significant period if at all. AND if he does, the investigation shouldn't end with him being scapegoated, there are plenty of others on the board and in other banks that need the public embarrassment of being arrested (and the justice of being charged) - David Drumm and Michael Fingleton are two that spring to mind.

I think there is enough on Seanie to know that what he did was wrong AND illegal. But whether he goes to jail is anybodys guess.

pah

Cyrus wrote: »

cant win

i couldnt give two figs for him, im just interested in the debate thats all,

a lot of people seem quite emotional about it tho,

you have quoted a passage from the companies act that i pasted, this is totally factual and backs up my assertion that his having loans from the bank was not illegal as was suggested by another poster,

do you disagree with that?

No I don't disagree with it and TBH the loans don't really bother me it's the shifting of Billions between accounts and banks to falsify records and to deceive for the purpose of making gain that I have a problem with.

Do you disagree with me that he has deceived and made gain?

Remember my earlier post where the Act defined gain as

(b) “gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one has not, and


Would you not agree his whole plan was to deceive and confuse in order to keep what he has? And I'm not talking about his personal finances but the balance sheets that he was responsible for? If he didn't keep up the charade though this would then have led to his own loans being questioned.

Therefore I argue that his deception was a means to an end in one sense to hold on to his loans and assets because as soon as the defecit came to light his personal finances would be under threat.

jmayo

Cyrus wrote: »

we can blame developers and bankers all we want, the fact is the country is running at a sizeable current deficit, i.e current expenditure is higher than current income, NAMA or no NAMA that problem would still exist,

NAMA is another royal pain in the backside, but unfortunately our problems run a lot deeper.

Re the golden circle, it could well be illegal here to advance loans to buy shares, im not sure, is there evidence that seanie was behind this himself? surely the rest of the board are involved if so?

Yes, but some of our current deficit problems stem form the fact we are loosing productive businesses becuase our banking system is defunct and as good as insolvent.
Also the current deficit of 20 odd billion a year pales in comparison to the 50 odd billion we are having to tie up in NAMA plus the 20 to 30 odd billion we have to pour into the banks as recapitalisation.
And one of the worse offenders in this is seanie Anglo. :mad:

Most commentators reckon the reason Drumm was promoted to CEO was becuase either of the other 3 long term lieutenants would not have been in the pocket of fitzpatrick.
It is very likely that seanie with very close ties to these individuals was involved in getting them to sign up to the loans for shares deal.
Oh and it might not be illegal in this tin pot country, where using your definition of insider trading those guilty of it have continued to practice their trade nevermind go to jail, but it damm well is in normal countries.

Cyrus wrote: »

where have i defended him?

One thing that strikes me is that I have never really noticed you posting on this forum before in the 3 odd years I have been on here.
Yet in one day you have been quiet prolific on this one topic.
And then you ask why people accuse you of defending him ?
All your posts have been trying to either find excuses for his behaviour or make light of his actions.

Cyrus wrote: »

if he has committed a criminal offence and is successfully prosecuted then he should go to jail.

however the man on the street wants to blame him for the countries downfall and wants to see him in jail for that, there are 100 other factors why we are in the mess we are in

no we did have the exact figures, we know the amount of the loan and we know the banks net assets from the annual reports, the net assets of the bank were 3.6bn as reported, 100m is relatively immaterial in the context of the balance sheet.


no i rarely irk myself

i had forgetten about the IL&P, but again i would suggest that this situation implicates the whole board of management of Anglo and not just seanie

Oh and as for the hundred odd reasons for our downfall, please do not mention Lehmans :mad:
True he is not the only one that should be facing serious examination as to their involvement and failures that has led to our banking system being destroyed.
That list should include neary, hurley, o'reilly, goggins, sheehy, fingelton, drumm, cowen, ahern, lenihan etc.