6 years jail for garlic scam

BarackPyjama

benway wrote: »

Well and good, but in my book, if you're excusing this guy, you're excusing the lot of them.

No. This guy won't be excused. The bigger crooks will though. They're generally politically protected. Either way, you're getting f**ked along with nearly everyone else in the country. Enjoy. And do keep defending the same government that's doing it to you. It's hilarious.

Tayla

realies wrote: »

If it was a different judge who passed the sentence would you have a problem with the jail term ?

It would depend on his sentencing record.

realies wrote: »

What do you mean you would let them get away with it, do you think white collar crime is victimless,its only tax evasion sure that's all right then.

No I said that I would let them all away with it if it meant that paedophiles got dealt with accordingly, not because I think white collar crime is victimless but because I think paedophiles should be locked up for a very long time and it would make this a better safer country.

benway wrote: »

Fck this guy. Let him rot. Fair play to the judge for having the courage to impose a harsh sentence on him - maybe this will make some of the other gombeens out there sit up and take notice.

It's an awful pity he doesn't have this 'courage' when it comes to sentencing paedophiles.

steddyeddy

benway wrote: »

Well and good, but in my book, if you're excusing this guy, you're excusing the lot of them.

As I said im not excusing him. What he did was wrong. Im not saying he shouldnt have been caught or put on trial or sentenced. Im wondering why this country always punishes people on the small end of the fraud scale.

Chucky the tree

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Or battering an OAP to death. Whatever you want to call it. My point remains. :rolleyes:

No it doesn't. Your point was incorrect, that still remains. I'd hardly call one punch battering either.

ArmaniJeanss

Leaving aside everything else - one interesting overlooked point is that the customs first uncovered this in Oct 2007.

Mr Begley appears to have been dumb enough to keep an email trail and various paperwork. He also, according to the prosecution, co-operated fully with the investigators.
So by any definition he was low hanging fruit, a very easy conviction.

Yet it took 4+ more years to actually build a case, get him to court and get a sentence passed.
It serves to underline just how slow moving the system is, how painstaking the paperwork involved is, how thorough the state have to be when they bring a tax evasion case.

Now for those who correctly want to see the less easy targets have their day in court I can only imagine how difficult it will be with the 'bankers' who didn't leave an email trail or damning paperwork and who decide not to co-operate the authorities. Who decide to bamboozle investigators with false trails, misinformation and plausible deniability.
Don't hold your breath on these cases.

BarackPyjama

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said im not excusing him. What he did was wrong. Im not saying he shouldnt have been caught or put on trial or sentenced. Im wondering why this country always punishes people on the small end of the fraud scale.

Because it's considered a crime against the government. Crimes against the people aren't really considered as important.

So, for example, you don't don't pay a 230% import duty on garlic to the Revenue, you will go to jail for a long time.

You sodomise a young child, you might get half the time. Unless you're a priest, in which case you get no time.

Hell, as a state we've even sanctioned slave labour camps where women were abused on an industrial level for generations.

But that's all okay. Just don't f**king dare not pay our garlic tax. :rolleyes:

BarackPyjama

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No it doesn't. Your point was incorrect, that still remains. I'd hardly call one punch battering either.

Ah yeah sure the old man only died. He probably deserved it for buying black market garlic. :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

You are jumping the shark now BP.

BarackPyjama

M'eh.

benway

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are jumping the shark now BP.

Seriously, brah.

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said im not excusing him. What he did was wrong. Im not saying he shouldnt have been caught or put on trial or sentenced. Im wondering why this country always punishes people on the small end of the fraud scale.

If we can't deal with the - relatively - small ones, what chance of action on the bigger ones?

My fear in all of this is that public opinion will be manipulated into forcing the appeal court to give one white collar criminal a pass, and it'll set a yardstick, and an excuse not to pursue more difficult cases, because the public appetite to see guys like Begley locked up is lacking.

People are talking as if it's obvious that white collar offences are minor in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion this couldn't be further from the truth.

Capt'n Midnight

benway wrote: »

People are talking as if it's obvious that white collar offences are minor in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion this couldn't be further from the truth.

Heath spending and road safety spending have to come from somewhere. When there cuts in them it's a question of how many lives will be lost or shortened.

Our excess winter mortality means that hundreds of old people will needlessly die each winter.

steddyeddy

benway wrote: »

Seriously, brah.



If we can't deal with the - relatively - small ones, what chance of action on the bigger ones?

My fear in all of this is that public opinion will be manipulated into forcing the appeal court to give one white collar criminal a pass, and it'll set a yardstick, and an excuse not to pursue more difficult cases, because the public appetite to see guys like Begley locked up is lacking.

People are talking as if it's obvious that white collar offences are minor in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion this couldn't be further from the truth.

We have never dealt with the big ones though. There never seems to be a call for this.

dvpower

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said im not excusing him. What he did was wrong. Im not saying he shouldnt have been caught or put on trial or sentenced. Im wondering why this country always punishes people on the small end of the fraud scale.

1.6m is not on the small end of anything. It is a massive fraud.

Run_to_da_hills

dvpower wrote: »

1.6m is not on the small end of anything. It is a massive fraud.

But 1.6m is minute compared to what fraud went on in the banking sector.

Sunnyisland

A ruling last month by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case of a man jailed for 12 years for social welfare fraud, gave future sentencing guidelines that “significant and systematic frauds directed upon the public revenue . . . should generally meet with an immediate and appreciable custodial sentence”.
Barrister Paul Anthony McDermott described the four-page judgment of the DPP v Paul Murray as “landmark” and said it used “the kind of language not usually associated with the Court of Criminal Appeal”.
The judgment described the appellant, who claimed dole payments at a number of offices around the State, as a passport holder, saying that as such he owed “a fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State”. The judgment said crimes involving the loss of public money were not “victimless crimes”.
It referred to the collapse of US investment firm Lehman Brothers in 2008 and its impact on the “contraction in our economy which is unparalleled in living memory”.
This all “calls for a high level of social solidarity.”

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=garlic%20scam%20man%20sentenced&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fireland%2F2012%2F0312%2F1224313154616.html&ei=O61dT9e9Ho-whAeCivGoBA&usg=AFQjCNHfKn-XcZAkWT4_Z7VL_Szq1o61oQ

It seems the courts are standing by there words & rightly so, and as has been said already didn't see much of a claim of the waste of time sentencing this man to prison to make room for peaodiphiles or any other reason.

Run_to_da_hills

With a 6 year stretch ahead of him, why doesn't this guy wind up his company, let everyone go and stick his middle finger up at the state.

dvpower

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

But 1.6m is minute compared to what fraud went on in the banking sector.

This case is in no way related to what went on in the banking sector.
Compared to other tax evasion cases, this one is huge.

dvpower

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With a 6 year stretch ahead of him, why doesn't this guy wind up his company, let everyone go and stick his middle finger up at the state.

And let some honest business take that market share. Not a bad idea.

Run_to_da_hills

dvpower wrote: »

This case is in no way related to what went on in the banking sector.
Compared to other tax evasion cases, this one is huge.

Both cases involve fraud. One gets severely punished and the other gets away Scot free.

Sunnyisland

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

With a 6 year stretch ahead of him, why doesn't this guy wind up his company, let everyone go and stick his middle finger up at the state.

He already stuck his finger up to the state and while robbing the money didn't give a dam about his employees or his family business,Anyway let him close his business down as I am quite sure there are decent honest people out there who could jump into his companies void.

turbobaby

Consider the tax this guy has paid down through the years to our pathetic, thieving, wasteful government.

Corporation Tax on his profits.
His own personal income tax.
Employers PAYE.
Employers PRSI.
The income tax paid by his employees.
Import duties.

...and this guy is the criminal!?

Unbelievable.

Sunnyisland

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Both cases involve fraud. One gets severely punished and the other gets away Scot free.

Files have already been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the banking sector & like this case which has gone on since 2007 should hopefully soon be before the courts, and hopefully after this sentence the bankers and developers and politician if found guilty will get as much a sentence as this thieve man.

Sunnyisland

turbobaby wrote: »

Consider the tax this guy has paid down through the years to our pathetic, thieving, wasteful government.

Corporation Tax on his profits.
His own personal income tax.
Employers PAYE.
Employers PRSI.
The income tax paid by his employees.
Import duties.

...and this guy is the criminal!?

Unbelievable.

Unbelievable is the posters who approve of him.

ps Most major gangland bosses in Ireland have legitimate companies who also pay the above,I wonder will the same lenient approach be shown to them when or if ever there ever brought before the courts.

endabob1

This is the bit that made me raise eyebrows

The court heard Begley made full admissions and volunteered additional information during the investigation. He has been paying off debt over the last two years at €33,000 a month. A debt of €700,000 remains outstanding.

So the total debt would have been paid off in under 2 years but instead he'll be in proson costing the tax payer??

They broke the law, fessed up and co-operated has been paying his due.
Fine him heavily, give him a suspended scentence and let him get back to running his business.

Sunnyisland

endabob1 wrote: »

This is the bit that made me raise eyebrows



So the total debt would have been paid off in under 2 years but instead he'll be in prison costing the tax payer??

They broke the law, fessed up and co-operated has been paying his due.
Fine him heavily, give him a suspended sentence and let him get back to running his business.

Sure most people when caught confess up and would pay anything not to be sent to prison,If the bankers with there millions squirreled away say the same will that be alright then

Anyway have to go,have a good day all.

turbobaby

realies wrote: »

Unbelievable is the posters who approve of him.

ps Most major gangland bosses in Ireland have legitimate companies who also pay the above,I wonder will the same lenient approach be shown to them when or if ever there ever brought before the courts.

Comparing this guy to a gangland criminal is wrong. He is a net contributor to the revenue, by a mile. He is a net contributor to society. The government takes takes takes, and they are still not happy.

irishdude11

endabob1 wrote: »

This is the bit that made me raise eyebrows



So the total debt would have been paid off in under 2 years but instead he'll be in proson costing the tax payer??

They broke the law, fessed up and co-operated has been paying his due.
Fine him heavily, give him a suspended scentence and let him get back to running his business.

Great idea, the rich should be allowed to buy their way out of jail time...I mean prison should only be for people who rob TVs or whatever, we shouldn't be putting guys who robbed 1.6 million of public money in jail.

irishdude11

turbobaby wrote: »

Comparing this guy to a gangland criminal is wrong. He is a net contributor to the revenue, by a mile. He is a net contributor to society. The government takes takes takes, and they are still not happy.

The country is f*cked because of white collar crime. Its about time the courts started cracking down on it. Pity they didn't start cracking down on it 15 years ago, then we all wouldn't be taking pay cuts and have family and friends emigrating.

The reason white collar crime is so endemic is because there has been long held notion, and rightly so, that you cant get done for it in this country. If people start seeing you can get done for it, and get several years behind bars for it, they will start cleaning up their act.

turbobaby

The fact is this guy gets jail time because he is not connected and is an amateur fraudster.

Our friends in the banking industry who you are referring to are not in the least bit scared by this ruling as they are professional white collar thieves, above the law in every respect.

irishdude11

turbobaby wrote: »

The fact is this guy gets jail time because he is not connected and is an amateur fraudster.

Our friends in the banking industry who you are referring to are not in the least bit scared by this ruling as they are professional white collar thieves, above the law in every respect.

Completely agree. The point is that its not that this guy's sentence is too high, its that all sentencing in Ireland is way too low. Guys that would be locked up for decades in the States are back on the streets in 5 years here. Ridiculous amount of suspended sentences given out. No penalty at all for white collar crime (apart from this case). We have the most useless shower of bastards as judges in this country.

turbobaby

Agreed. They are totally detached from society. How the Gardai put up with the justice system I do not know.

reprazant

irishdude11 wrote: »

Completely agree. The point is that its not that this guy's sentence is too high, its that all sentencing in Ireland is way too low. Guys that would be locked up for decades in the States are back on the streets in 5 years here. Ridiculous amount of suspended sentences given out. No penalty at all for white collar crime (apart from this case). We have the most useless shower of bastards as judges in this country.

Posters moan when sentences are too low, then posters moan when sentences are not low.

If he was dealing in dodging smokes or petrol, nobody would raise an eyebrow at what he did. If he was scamming the social welfare by over a quarter of a million each year for 6 years, nobody would care about this sentence. In fact, they would probably demand more. But because it involves garlic and onions, the fraud weirdly does not seem that bad. Fraud is fraud.

benway

Leaving aside the case of persons convicted of serious drugs offences - offences which are, in some respects, at least, sui generis - a sentence of this gravity is generally reserved for serious offences against the person, such as manslaughter, rape, serious assault and false imprisonment or aggravated burglary offences. While the latter offence overlaps with the offences of theft and robbery, the reason it is treated so severely by the law is because of the fact that the victims have generally been terrified in the process and by reason of the long term impact which such offences have on the peace of mind of the persons affected. In that respect, burglary is in truth regarded as an offence which is more akin to an offence against the person than a pure theft offence simpliciter.

... serious offences against the person - involving as they do the unlawful use of violence - are nearly always in a separate category of offending, involving as they do moral delinquency of a high order. In recent weeks this Court, for example, has had to deal with offences ranging from the penetration of a seven year old girl by her father, the false imprisonment of an elderly couple in the course of an aggravated burglary which involved elements of unusually cruel and sadistic violence, the slashing and permanent disfigurement of an innocent young man who was callously left to fight for his life by his assailant to the repeated kicking of a victim lying prostrate on the ground by multiple assailants over several hours until he lapsed into a coma and died.

Offences against the person of this kind accordingly involve an affront to human dignity, a key constitutional objective protected by the Preamble to the Constitution, a violation of the integrity of the person (Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution) and, as often as not, a violation of the dwelling (Article 40.5 of the Constitution): see generally the discussion of this topic for this Court by Hardiman J. in The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Barnes [2006] IECCA 165, [2007] 3 I.R. 130 at 144-149. These considerations must weigh heavily with any sentencing judge. In the case of offences involving public revenue - such as taxation offences and social welfare fraud - the level of moral delinquency will not often approach that particularly elevated level, although, of course, it can do so.

This is not at all to suggest that crimes involving the loss of public revenue are somehow victimless crimes. Quite the contrary: offences of this kind strike at the heart of the principles of equity, equality of treatment and social solidarity on which the entire edifice of the taxation and social security systems lean. This is especially so at a time of emergency so far as the public finances are concerned.

The collapse of US investment firm Lehman Brothers in September 2008 triggered the onset of a global financial crisis which, in turn, has ushered in a contraction in our economy which is unparalleled in living memory. Faced with enormous demands on the public purse from the associated banking collapse and a continuing structural public deficit, the State has struggled during this period with a series of fiscal emergencies. To their great credit, the Irish people have as a consequence stoically endured significant taxation increases, reductions in social security payments and retrenchment at all levels in the provision of social services, as the State endeavours to restore an equilibrium in the public finances.

All of this calls for a high level of social solidarity. We have seen from elsewhere how widespread tax evasion by the wealthy and well-to-do can gravely threaten social solidarity and, as a consequence, the very stability of a state itself. That solidarity would also be gravely endangered if taxpayers were led to believe that social security fraud was rampant or that, when detected, it would not be dealt with severely. By the same token, social security fraud impacts heavily on those who are most in need, since, by definition, it saps public confidence in the system and, of necessity, erodes the total sums available for the needy and those genuinely reliant on such payments.

As an Irish passport holder, the appellant owed a “fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State”: see Article 9(2) of the Constitution. Especially in a time of fiscal emergency, that fidelity and loyalty demanded that this social solidarity be respected. The appellant’s widespread, persistent and systematic fraud of the social security system set that fidelity and loyalty at naught. As such, his conduct was gravely wrong and the sentences to be imposed must reflect this consideration.

In the case of offences involving the public purse, deterrence plays an important value in the sentencing process. In the context of frauds upon the public revenue, deterrence is an important consideration, in that it is a necessary quid pro quo of social solidarity. It gives an assurance to the hard-pressed bona fide taxpayer that the State will both collect and distribute its revenue fairly and that those who defraud will be sternly dealt with. Some element of severity is necessary to ensure that taxpayers will pay the State what has been deemed by law to be properly due and to assure those who rely on social security payments that public support for the needy will not be undermined by an official culture which either turns a blind eye to those who commit illegal tax evasion on the one hand, or social security fraud on the other,or which is indifferent to these consequences.

We therefore suggest for the future guidance of sentencing courts that significant and systematic frauds directed upon the public revenue - whether illegal tax evasion on the one hand or social security fraud on the other - should generally meet with an immediate and appreciable custodial sentence, although naturally the sentence to be imposed in any given case must have appropriate regard to the individual circumstances of each accused.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/23fd4a34bad801d980256ec50047a0a8/0d6878ae2d101d93802579b40052fc3f?OpenDocument

Run_to_da_hills

turbobaby wrote: »

Agreed. They are totally detached from society. How the Gardai put up with the justice system I do not know.

Gardai are just umpa lumpas to the justice system.

dvpower

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Both cases involve fraud. One gets severely punished and the other gets away Scot free.

So you want the other to get away scot free too?

spockety

benway wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/23fd4a34bad801d980256ec50047a0a8/0d6878ae2d101d93802579b40052fc3f?OpenDocument

We therefore suggest for the future guidance of sentencing courts that significant and systematic frauds directed upon the public revenue - whether illegal tax evasion on the one hand or social security fraud on the other - should generally meet with an immediate and appreciable custodial sentence, although naturally the sentence to be imposed in any given case must have appropriate regard to the individual circumstances of each accused.

I'd also point out that these crimes ended in 2007, 4 or 5 years before that edict was handed down.

benway

spockety wrote: »

I'd also point out that these crimes ended in 2007, 4 or 5 years before that edict was handed down.

This is the law on sentencing these offenses as it stands, I think, case law doesn't have the same problems of retroactive effect as statute - it's seen as a restatement of the law, rather than new law. I think the Duffy Motors decision may be relevant as well, in any event there's a pretty thorough justification in there for why custodial sentences are deemed necessary for these offences.

Individual circumstances always have to be factored into sentencing, it's one of the fundamental principles. You're not implying that because someone's an oootraprenooor he should never face jail?

steddyeddy wrote: »

We have never dealt with the big ones though. There never seems to be a call for this.

Worse, when there's even a hint of a move in this direction, people start bleating on about the unfairness of it all, acting like prison should be reserved for "scumbags" in trackie bottoms.

Run_to_da_hills

dvpower wrote: »

So you want the other to get away scot free too?

The state can't make an example of one person on fraud charges if they persistently let others that did worse damage off with lesser charges or even off the hook altogether.

I doubt if any of our former corrupt politician that colaberated with the banks on fraudulent property deals would ever see six months never mind six years.

reprazant

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The state can't make an example of one person on fraud charges if they persistently let others that did worse damage off with lesser charges or even off the hook altogether.

I doubt if any of our former corrupt politician that colaberated with the banks on fraudulent property deals would ever see six months never mind six years.

So what do you want? Everyone off scot free or every one in jail?

Since you seem to be complaining about this sentence, I presume that you want everyone off scot free.

Run_to_da_hills

reprazant wrote: »

So what do you want? Everyone off scot free or every one in jail?

Since you seem to be complaining about this sentence, I presume that you want everyone off scot free.

Yes if they can't apply the law to everyone don't have it at all.

ArmaniJeanss

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes if they can't apply the law to everyone don't have it at all.

Interesting logic.

This apply to murderers as well?

Since whoever killed Raonaid Murray got away scot free, should we let the likes of Joe O'Reilly out as well?

dvpower

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes if they can't apply the law to everyone don't have it at all.

Open up the prisons - free everyone. :rolleyes:

gozunda

dvpower wrote: »

Just balancing that out a bit.

Well done, you have beautifully missed the point through that ol' quoting out of context gag...

OK for the hard of understanding, here it is again - the relevance of
defrauding the state (and ourselves btw) be it a bit more or less is completely beside the point that has been made in this thread. The fact remains this type of behaviour is rife as a result of individuals continuing to exploit such disparities for opportunities of personal gain as a result of inequitable taxes and duties. I do not suggest that this behaviour is right but it would appear to be just as prevalent amongst Joe Citizens as it is the business sector. Thats why the stone throwing exhibited in this thread is more is redolent of "lets get the rich b*st*rd" school of thought than a disparate discussion of the offence committed.

The small man knowingly buying and smoking his contraband cigarettes is just as much committing a crime as this importer of garlic

The garlic came to an amount lost to revenue of € 1,600,000
The loss to the state for dodgy tobacco comes to a whopping €250,000,000

THE STATE imposed fines of €250,000 arising from illegal tobacco sales and smuggling last year, according to Revenue figures.
The annual loss to the exchequer from black market cigarettes is about 1,000 times the amount imposed in fines.
In 2011 a total of 102 convictions for cigarette smuggling led to €136,300 in fines and 31 custodial sentences, 21 of which were suspended. The longest of the 10 sentences which were served was 12 months.
A total of 57 convictions relating to the illegal sale of cigarettes resulted in €115,850 in fines and 14 custodial sentences, seven of which were served, the longest of which was three years, with one year suspended.

(LINK)


Anyone who knowingly buys dodgy cigarettes or other contraband is in my opinion committing a similarly serious offence but hey if its as you are implying it’s just Joe Citizen enjoying a sneaky fag well and obviously thats different and ok then....

SEPT 23 1989

That woman in Blanchardstown was sentenced today to 6 years in prison for driving into a taxi driver snapping his spine in two

6 years

JP Liz V1

You get less for murder these days

Chucky the tree

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

You get less for murder these days

No you don't.

dvpower

gozunda wrote: »

Anyone who knowingly buys dodgy cigarettes or other contraband is in my opinion committing a similarly serious offence but hey if its as you are implying it’s just Joe Citizen enjoying a sneaky fag well and obviously thats different and ok then....

If you buy a pack of smuggled cigarettes with a loss to Revenue <€10, you think its as serious an offence as this case with a loss of €1.6m?

All crimes are equal now? Bizarre.

endabob1

realies wrote: »

Sure most people when caught confess up and would pay anything not to be sent to prison,If the bankers with there millions squirreled away say the same will that be alright then

Anyway have to go,have a good day all.

Missing the point completely.

His reward for co-operation is a scentence longer than the suggested, what message does that send out to other white collar fraudsters?
Most people when caught do not confess up and volunteer additional information & start making payments on their debt, quite a few of them disappear with their ill gotten gains and if I was in a similar position I would be packing my cash into suitcases and heading to Northern Cyprus.

sbsquarepants

Fúck him. I won't loose any sleep over it - if you robbed 1.6m and got caught you wouldn't be allowed just give the money back and say no harm, no foul. And as for that Charlie O'Connor clown saying anyone who knows him will tell you he's a decent , hard working and honest man!! Yea, compared to your shower of cúnts he may well be. But to normal standards he is not an honest or a decent man - he's a fúcking crook and he's being treated like a crook, good enough for him!

mconigol

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Fúck him. I won't loose any sleep over it - if you robbed 1.6m and got caught you wouldn't be allowed just give the money back and say no harm, no foul. And as for that Charlie O'Connor clown saying anyone who knows him will tell you he's a decent , hard working and honest man!! Yea, compared to your shower of cúnts he may well be. But to normal standards he is not an honest or a decent man - he's a fúcking crook and he's being treated like a crook, good enough for him!

Not paying a tax is not the same as committing a robbery.

Ironically he is probably getting punished because of his background. If he was from a disadvantaged background with numerous convictions for assault etc. we would probably get more leniency.