Sean Fitz arrested?

Slydice

Sean FitzPatrick calls today 'a wonderful day for me' after acquittal
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/sean-fitzpatrick-calls-today-a-wonderful-day-for-me-after-acquittal-790860.html

Former Anglo Irish Bank chairman, Sean FitzPatrick has said his prosecution for allegedly misleading the bank's auditors about millions of euro in loans was a difficult time for him and his family.

Sean FitzPatrick acquitted on all charges
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0523/877300-sean-fitzpatrick/

Speaking after the ruling the former bank executive said: "I want to say it was a very long and tiring and difficult time for my family, myself but thankfully today the trial is over.

"As you can appreciate it's a wonderful day for me and my family."

https://twitter.com/FrankGreaney/status/866975399871434752

Kitsunegari

Sam Russell wrote: »

€60 billion in bail outs, plus interest, plus the visit from Troika. Then there is the cost of the austerity, the homelessness, the negative equity, plus etc. etc. etc.

Then there is the borrowing to pay the dole, and running the country.

About €120 billion in total.

There is no avoiding paying the dole in Ireland. The costs of running labour intensive employment in this country are unsustainable when you consider the costs of production elsewhere. We've opened up our economy completely and lost our ability to control costs and unsustainable outside factors. The cost of living is quite high and those that choose not to upskill or are unable to upskill in a globalised economy are left behind to rely on the state to provide a means of living.

We don't have the means to push our way out of the path we've taken at the moment. As long as banks are allowed to privatise profits but nationalise debt then there will always be something wrong with the system.

Sam Russell

The dole I was referring to was those thrown out of work due to the shutdown of construction and the recession. We went from full employment to 17.3 % unemployed - currently 6.7%. It cost a lot to pay out so much and it all had to be borrowed.

Mr.Micro

Captain Obvious wrote: »

ODCE bit off more than they could chew it seems.

Incompetents not fit for purpose IMO.

Captain Obvious

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Incompetents not fit for purpose IMO.

Not really. It was the first case of this size and they didn't have the staff or experience for it. They are better equipped now but the damage was already done in this case.

John_Mc

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not really. It was the first case of this size and they didn't have the staff or experience for it. They are better equipped now but the damage was already done in this case.

What do you mean "not really"? The ODCE exist solely to prosecute cases like this - it is their mandate.

As for this case being particularly complex, I really don't think it is. The loans were given and not reported, or if they were, they were reported as something else in contravention of company law.

It is so wrong and so incompetent that I am begining to think that it was done deliberately to destroy the case. Have a read and see if you really believe it

professore

Sam Russell wrote: »

The dole I was referring to was those thrown out of work due to the shutdown of construction and the recession. We went from full employment to 17.3 % unemployed - currently 6.7%. It cost a lot to pay out so much and it all had to be borrowed.

Spot on. A worker transferring to the dole is a double whammy - lost tax revenue and costs that the state has to bear. However quite a bit of the "employment" in construction was a bubble and unsustainable. Also concerned about the recent report that there is plenty of existing housing in every county in Ireland. Sounds like an artificial demand is being created again.

Del.Monte

Two questions remain:

1) When will 'Mammy' Finucane begin the rehabilitation of 'Seanie' on her programme?

2) When will Seanie instigate proceedings against the State?

amovingstatue

it is indeed wonderful. in an unprecedented, unbelievable, bizarre kind of way.

there's one missing.... but i don't want to affect the impartiality of any future trial jury. hah!

Deiseen

Guys, someone here will know better than me.

But is this the end of the road for a prosecution of Sean Fitzpatrick or can it go to the Supreme court?

Or is it a case now where new evidence would need to surface in order for it to go back to trial.

Just finding it hard to believe that this man has got away with this. If Dunne gets away then that's it, I'm giving up all hope.

johnnyskeleton

Deiseen wrote: »

But is this the end of the road for a prosecution of Sean Fitzpatrick or can it go to the Supreme court?

No as it was a judicial decision it can be appealled by the prosecution on a point of law to the court of appeal.

Just finding it hard to believe that this man has got away with this. If Dunne gets away then that's it, I'm giving up all hope.

"Gets away" with what exactly? He wasnt on trial for the banking collapse, just for allegedly making misleading statements about loans. Some of the documentation in relation to those alleged statements was deliberately destroyed by a state body, so the Judge found that it would be unsafe to convict.

Unfortunately, what people seem to want is for heads to roll, but everyone in a democratic society is entitled to a fair trial. So, if the prosecution cannot prove that he broke the law, he is entitled to an acquittal.

Deiseen

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Deiseen wrote: »

But is this the end of the road for a prosecution of Sean Fitzpatrick or can it go to the Supreme court?

No as it was a judicial decision it can be appealled by the prosecution on a point of law to the court of appeal.

Just finding it hard to believe that this man has got away with this. If Dunne gets away then that's it, I'm giving up all hope.

"Gets away" with what exactly? He wasnt on trial for the banking collapse, just for allegedly making misleading statements about loans. Some of the documentation in relation to those alleged statements was deliberately destroyed by a state body, so the Judge found that it would be unsafe to convict.

Unfortunately, what people seem to want is for heads to roll, but everyone in a democratic society is entitled to a fair trial. So, if the prosecution cannot prove that he broke the law, he is entitled to an acquittal.

The only thing the prosecution proved was that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. Yes I know that Mr. Fitzpatrick was not the only factor in the whole entire banking collapse in Ireland but, as the head of one of the most toxic banks in the country, he needs to be held to some kind of account.

If it does get appealed then won't the incompetence still play a part in that appeal or the subsequent re-trial?

Cyrus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No as it was a judicial decision it can be appealled by the prosecution on a point of law to the court of appeal.



"Gets away" with what exactly? He wasnt on trial for the banking collapse, just for allegedly making misleading statements about loans. Some of the documentation in relation to those alleged statements was deliberately destroyed by a state body, so the Judge found that it would be unsafe to convict.

Unfortunately, what people seem to want is for heads to roll, but everyone in a democratic society is entitled to a fair trial. So, if the prosecution cannot prove that he broke the law, he is entitled to an acquittal.

There's no place for any reasoned debate like that here unfortunately

blackwhite

Is there any other charges pending against Sean Fitz?

The Chartered Acciuntants Ireland disciplinary actions were put on hold pending resolution of the criminal investigations.
Whilst it won't bring the public lynchings without trial that some seem to want, at least it should result in the facts of what actually happened being brought to light. AFAIK a finding which suspended Fitzpatrick's membership of CAI would be enough to disqualify him from holding directorships of "Regulated Entities" (which would included most companies in the banking and insurance sectors) and this prevent him being able to take on potentially cushy non-exec directorships in his former field of "expertise" (assuming he has any buddies left in the industry who would offer him such a role).

Kitsunegari

I don't think any CAI ruling would have any legal binding on Sean Fitzpatrick outside of his role as a chartertered accountant. The fact that we're scraping the barrel at this point just shows how poor the criminal justice system in Ireland really is.

blackwhite

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I don't think any CAI ruling would have any legal binding on Sean Fitzpatrick outside of his role as a chartertered accountant. The fact that we're scraping the barrel at this point just shows how poor the criminal justice system in Ireland really is.

For ordinary directorships there wouldn't be any impact, but directorships of regulated entities have high bar fit and proper regulations.

Section 5 of the attached would likely nobble him https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/Regulation/authorisation/fitness-probity/regulated-financial-service-providers/completing-and-submitting-an-individual-questionnaire/gns4-1-1-3-1-2iq-sample-template.pdf?sfvrsn=8

marieholmfan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Unfortunately, what people seem to want is for heads to roll, but everyone in a democratic society is entitled to a fair trial. So, if the prosecution cannot prove that he broke the law, he is entitled to an acquittal.

The prosecution was not given the opportunity to prove that he broke the law. Aylmer made sure not only that Fitzpatrick would not be jailed but also that the facts of the Anglo collapse would never come to light.

Cyrus

marieholmfan wrote: »

The prosecution was not given the opportunity to prove that he broke the law. Aylmer made sure not only that Fitzpatrick would not be jailed but also that the facts of the Anglo collapse would never come to light.

the prosecution had their opportunity, they made a complete pigs ear of it,

also what facts havent come to light exactly?

marieholmfan

Cyrus wrote: »

the prosecution had their opportunity, they made a complete pigs ear of it,

also what facts havent come to light exactly?

We don't know do we?

:rolleyes:

Cyrus

marieholmfan wrote: »

We don't know do we?

:rolleyes:

to be fair its quite apparent, i think you are assuming some cover up of something very sinister when all the dirty laundry has been aired for years