6 years jail for garlic scam

JP Liz V1

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No you don't.

Manslaughter still murder in my book but you do get less

dvpower

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Manslaughter still murder in my book but you do get less

Your book is incorrect.

Howjoe1

"A woman has been jailed for 6 years for killing a taxi driver. In the first case of its kind Claire Nolan has been sentenced for crushing her victim to death with her car. 66 year old Michael Duffy died in his son's driveway at Wellview Grove in Blanchardstown in 2008. The 25 year old killer, from Sheephill Green in Blanchardstown admitted manslaughter."

news reports on the matter C&P.

Howjoe1

dvpower wrote: »

Your book is incorrect.

so is it more correct to say 6 yrs for killing someone?

benway

Howjoe1 wrote: »

"A woman has been jailed for 6 years for killing a taxi driver. In the first case of its kind Claire Nolan has been sentenced for crushing her victim to death with her car. 66 year old Michael Duffy died in his son's driveway at Wellview Grove in Blanchardstown in 2008. The 25 year old killer, from Sheephill Green in Blanchardstown admitted manslaughter."

news reports on the matter C&P.

That's manslaughter, not murder. Murder carries mandatory life under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990.

Howjoe1 wrote: »

so is it more correct to say 6 yrs for killing someone?

Might possibly be correct to say that people have been sentenced to six years for manslaughter in the particular circumstances of the case, and given the particular circumstances of the accused, where the degree of moral culpability was deemed to have fallen short of the standard of wilful killing necessary to ground a conviction for murder.

The Central Criminal Court have clearly set out their reasoning for the imposition of substantial prison sentences in these cases, including a comparison with offences of violence:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77548631&postcount=384

Hope that helps.

Howjoe1

benway wrote: »

That's manslaughter, not murder. Murder carries mandatory life under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990.

I never said it was murder.

turbobaby

That killer will serve less than 4 years, guaranteed.

I wonder was she a net contributor to the revenue and society. Doubtful!

JP Liz V1

Just an example to add to my point

Wayne O'Donoghue sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan

dvpower

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Just an example to add to my point

What is your point?
That judges, when sentencing, should review the entire history of criminal sentences, take the lowest one, and then come up with a sentence based on that?

benway

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Just an example to add to my point

Wayne O'Donoghue sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan

Your point is totally frivolous, youre not comparing like with like. Give a read of that judgment above - 9 1/2 years for €250k dole fraud - and then come back to me.

gozunda

dvpower wrote: »

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.

You really didn'y get the point of the post did you dvp?


OK
So you buy a pack of smuggled cigarettes, and your 10 mates buy one each, and their 10 mates buy one and so on ad infinitum. Together they all knowlingly support the guy who is selling 10000 dodgy cigarettes and the other guy who is importing 100000 dodgy cigarettes depriving the state of more revenue in a month than the garlic guy could in 10 years...

So that is how this is just as a serious an offence...I believe its called zero tolerance btw and its about time to look around and see just how many people are intentionaly defrauding the state and others by their behaviour... "ah sure its only a packet of fags - sure that wouldn't do any harm yer honour"....

And of course garlic is so much worse for you than fags...

dvpower

gozunda wrote: »

You really didn'y get the point of the post did you dvp?

Yeah. I got the point. It was very clear.

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 meant to say something else, then say it, but don't expect us to guess what you really mean.

Chucky the tree

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Just an example to add to my point

Wayne O'Donoghue sentenced to four years in prison for the manslaughter of Robert Holohan

Is this another point you got from the book that also contains "manslaughter is still murder"?

JP Liz V1

I guess my point I was trying to make was that you can take a life in Ireland and get a lesser sentence

ArmaniJeanss

gozunda wrote: »

So that is how this is just as a serious an offence...I believe its called zero tolerance btw and its about time to look around and see just how many people are intentionaly defrauding the state and others by their behaviour... "ah sure its only a packet of fags - sure that wouldn't do any harm yer honour"....

I don't actually think its an offence to buy street cigarettes, let alone a 'yer honour' offence to which zero telerance needs to be applied.

Its currently up to the seller to be licensed properly, and to pay the appropriate taxes.

plasmaguy

Large scale and deliberate tax evasion, as was the case here, is treasonous in my and many other people's book.

He was lucky only to get 6 years, given that it was treasonous. That money was denied to the exchequer, which could be spent on teachers, nurses, ambulances and so on.

It might even have cost someone their life, in our run down health system. There is always a knock on effect from under payment of tax. Someone somewhere suffers, usually the most vulnerable.

This guy was a multimillionaire who lived well based on a scam.

mconigol

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't actually think its an offence to buy street cigarettes, let alone a 'yer honour' offence to which zero telerance needs to be applied.

Its currently up to the seller to be licensed properly, and to pay the appropriate taxes.

Emmmm...yes it is. You're not paying duty or VAT. That's like saying it's grand to buy washed diesel.

ArmaniJeanss

mconigol wrote: »

Emmmm...yes it is. You're not paying duty or VAT. That's like saying it's grand to buy washed diesel.

Different scenario I think.
Isn't the actual offence there that you have illegal diesel that is not for sale to the general public, or that has those funny dyes in it?

Like I've seen the washed diesel programs on TV and they make clear that its an offence on the drivers part. That there are specific laws making it illegal to buy or possess these products.

But have also seen the equivalent programs re cigarettes in markets and have never seen a customs officer mention that there is an offence being committed by the buyer?

And when I buy cigarettes in Dunnes or Spar, I never pay duty either. I pay an amount specified by the shop and the tax and duty obligations are on the shop.

cock robin

mconigol wrote: »

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.

His backround ? He was brought up in Tallaght and his parents used to pack fruit and veg in a garage at the side of their house. So what point you are making there escapes me. Unless your making the case that like thousands of other criminals from Tallaght who broke the law got caught and got sentenced, he is no different to any other citizen who knowingly sets out to defraud the state and gets busted. The only difference is that Mr Begley had an excellent standard of living as opposed to some who steal cos they could'nt be bothered to get a job and provide for themself. His motive was either greed or he thought he and he alone should determine the import rates for garlic as he saw fit. In either case he broke the law and now has time to reflect on his actions.

cock robin

BarackPyjama wrote: »

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

Your point remains alright. Mr Begley was charged with a case of tax evasion which he pleaded guilty to and was sentenced. Rapists, murderers, paedophiles and such like should not be compared to his crime and nor should the sentences they recieve. They are totally different crimes and carry different tarrifs. Why if you want to defend the guy you would continue to compare him or his sentence to that of sex offenders is just weird. He is not and should not be grouped in such a category. It amazes me that the bleeding hearts feel it nessecary to make such comparisons, is it that they realise this may be the only avenue left open to them in an effort to secure the relase of this criminal, compare his sentence to rape and murder. FFS get real.

JohnMarston

We can all sleep easy tonight. This madman and his garlic has been locked up.

mconigol

cock robin wrote: »

His backround ? He was brought up in Tallaght and his parents used to pack fruit and veg in a garage at the side of their house. So what point you are making there escapes me. Unless your making the case that like thousands of other criminals from Tallaght who broke the law got caught and got sentenced, he is no different to any other citizen who knowingly sets out to defraud the state and gets busted. The only difference is that Mr Begley had an excellent standard of living as opposed to some who steal cos they could'nt be bothered to get a job and provide for themself. His motive was either greed or he thought he and he alone should determine the import rates for garlic as he saw fit. In either case he broke the law and now has time to reflect on his actions.

I had absolutely no clue where he was from when I wrote that post and I don't consider Tallaght a disadvantaged area (anyway I also said disadvantaged "background" not "area"). When I referred to background I mainly referring to his character and that people with extremely poor personal backgrounds (i.e. multiple convictions for violent assault, burglary etc.) regularly have that taken into account when being sentenced. Whereas in this case his background (as a generally decent human being it appears) doesn't hold any sway.

I've said several times on this thread that he committed a crime and should be punished but I think the punishment given down was excessive and plain wrong.

Prison in my opinion should be for violent offenders. I do not see the need to keep other people locked behind bars at great cost to the state.

gozunda

dvpower wrote: »

Yeah. I got the point. It was very clear

You did make it clear that you didn't with your €10 euro pack of fags not being part of criminal activity? - I simply showed how it was...

dvpower wrote: »

If you meant to say something else, then say it, but don't expect us to guess what you really mean.

Nice backtracking btw - That was what I was saying...if you really didn't understand then I really cant help tbh...If you have to guess then I guess you will have to just hope for the best and maybe stick to simpler discussions.

cock robin

mconigol wrote: »

I had absolutely no clue where he was from when I wrote that post and I don't consider Tallaght a disadvantaged area (anyway I also said disadvantaged "background" not "area"). When I referred to background I mainly referring to his character and that people with extremely poor personal backgrounds (i.e. multiple convictions for violent assault, burglary etc.) regularly have that taken into account when being sentenced. Whereas in this case his background (as a generally decent human being it appears) doesn't hold any sway.

I've said several times on this thread that he committed a crime and should be punished but I think the punishment given down was excessive and plain wrong.

Prison in my opinion should be for violent offenders. I do not see the need to keep other people locked behind bars at great cost to the state.

Can you not understand that there is no deterrent worse than the loss of liberty. Fining a man of Mr Begleys wealth is not a deterrent. Just out of curiosity what sentence or punishment would you deem applicable in this case and bear in mind that wether or not he is imprisoned Inland Revenue will still get whatever monies are owed by Begley.

gozunda

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I don't actually think its an offence to buy street cigarettes, let alone a 'yer honour' offence to which zero telerance needs to be applied.

Its currently up to the seller to be licensed properly, and to pay the appropriate taxes.

"Ah sure I didn't do anything wrong...."

*sigh* Goes and gets coat".....

AJ - How about actually thinking about what has been written OK?

smash

Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

srsly78

smash wrote: »

Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

Vampires have infiltrated the government?

Run_to_da_hills

smash wrote: »

Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Can someone explain why import duty on is garlic is up to 232%? How the f*ck is that calculated?

Cost Price * 2.32

dvpower

gozunda wrote: »

You did make it clear that you didn't with your €10 euro pack of fags not being part of criminal activity? - I simply showed how it was...

I think you might be mixing me up with someone who said that evading €10 excise duty on a pack of cigarettes isn't criminal activity.
It is. Just much much less serious.

Chucky the tree

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.

No, in reality the man has only himself to blame for getting six years.

ArmaniJeanss

gozunda wrote: »

"Ah sure I didn't do anything wrong...."

*sigh* Goes and gets coat".....

AJ - How about actually thinking about what has been written OK?

OK, You said that buying cigarettes on the street is as bad an offence because when a multiple of people do it the cumulative effect is the same financially as Mr Begleys criminalities. And you talked about how a person could be up in front of the judge for it.

And I pointed out that it isn't actually (afaik) a criminal offence to buy cigarettes on the street, so therefore to compare it to Begley is wrong.

I'd agree it should be an offence by the way - I've never done it myself and always buy my cigarettes in shops.

dvpower

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That high duty figure is dictated to by the EU and not the Irish government for the main reason of protecting European garlic producers.

So in reality we should be blaming EU for your man getting six years.

Why? Do they dictate sentencing policy too now?

Run_to_da_hills

dvpower wrote: »

Why? Do they dictate sentencing policy too now?

Give it time and they will.

l.m

BarackPyjama wrote: »

He's worse than a rapist. He's a guy who wouldn't pay a 230% import tax on a food stuff. He's evil. Evil I tells ya.
.

Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!

ArmaniJeanss

l.m wrote: »

Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!

Barack was posting ironically.

gozunda

dvpower wrote: »

I think you might be mixing me up with someone who said that evading €10 excise duty on a pack of cigarettes isn't criminal activity.
It is. Just much much less serious.

Here you go...

dvpower wrote: »

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?
....

Your response indicated that you did not believe that an individual buying illegal cigarettes was in any way committing a serious offence even when this activity was part of cumulative behaviour which not only eqated with the 1.6 million euro garlic scam but exceeds it by many billions of euro.

Attempting to claim that those involved in any part of criminal activity bear any less culpability than the sum of the whole is ludricous. Without individuals contributing to such criminal activity there would in this case be no reason for either the seller or smuggler of such dodgy fags.
This type of behaviour is both a serious offence and a criminal activity imo.

plasmaguy

l.m wrote: »

Worse than a rapist, what type of an insensitive comment is that! Not paying bloody import tax will never match the trauma caused by rape!

1.6 million denied to the taxpayer is a serious crime to be honest.

In the context of the property tax for example, that's something like the equivalent of 16,000 households.

There is no question that when people underpay tax, either the government has to borrow more, and its your children who pay it back with interest, or else vital frontline services have to be cut.

6 years was about right. The unfortunate thing is he will be out in 3.

How many nurses, teachers and so on will have to be cut this year to pay for this 1.6 shortfall in tax?

l.m

I understand the harms on our economy it has I just don't think it's right for him to be treated the same way rapists are

benway

l.m wrote: »

I understand the harms on our economy it has I just don't think it's right for him to be treated the same way rapists are

Why, because he's not some lower-class "scumbag"? Or some "monster", "animal", "beast" of a rapist?

He's being treated the same as someone caught for robbing a large amount of money, or defrauding the social welfare of a large sum.

Or isn't fleecing the state, by extension all of us, out of a seven figure sum a "real crime"?

Until we implement a better system than prison, this is how it has to be.

gozunda

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

OK, You said that buying cigarettes on the street is as bad an offence because when a multiple of people do it the cumulative effect is the same financially as Mr Begleys criminalities. And you talked about how a person could be up in front of the judge for it.

And I pointed out that it isn't actually (afaik) a criminal offence to buy cigarettes on the street, so therefore to compare it to Begley is wrong.

I'd agree it should be an offence by the way - I've never done it myself and always buy my cigarettes in shops.

My apologies - close. As far as I am aware the purchase of fake (and many smuggled cigarettes are counterfeit btw) and undeclared merchandise is illegal.

Possession of such goods can also be deemed illegal, however it is perhaps beyond the powers that be to follow individuals around and investigate each packet of fags hence resources are directed at the smugglers and sellers.

44leto

I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Someone got six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

But on the news tonight.

Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.

benway

44leto wrote: »

I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Some gets six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.

The Central Criminal Court has set out their rationale for imposing substantial prison sentences in these kinds of cases, you should have a read of it:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77548631&postcount=384

But don't even try to trivialise a massive fraud on all of us as "calling onions garlic".

djk1000

44leto wrote: »

I don't trust the judicial system in this land, it seems lopsided and inconsistent. Some gets six years for dodging tax as in calling onions garlic.

Another man gets six years for abusing his daughter

Then another gets six years for intentionally ramming a car into a 56 year old man while being drunk and on drugs.

If you evade tax, it is fairly easy to do, easy to get away with for a long time (some people are never caught), the tax authorities basically trust a large part of the population to be honest about their taxes on the basis that punishments are so severe when caught that most people see that it's not worth taking even the slightest chance.

If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

That's the thinking anyway!

mconigol

cock robin wrote: »

Can you not understand that there is no deterrent worse than the loss of liberty. Fining a man of Mr Begleys wealth is not a deterrent. Just out of curiosity what sentence or punishment would you deem applicable in this case and bear in mind that wether or not he is imprisoned Inland Revenue will still get whatever monies are owed by Begley.

Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

I think he should have either received a sentence of less than 2 years or had his personal assets stripped. Possibly some kind of house arrest.

I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.

44leto

djk1000 wrote: »

If you evade tax, it is fairly easy to do, easy to get away with for a long time (some people are never caught), the tax authorities basically trust a large part of the population to be honest about their taxes on the basis that punishments are so severe when caught that most people see that it's not worth taking even the slightest chance.

If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

That's the thinking anyway!

I agree, but if I was the victim in those other crimes reported on tonights news I would feel it was an injustice the family of the murdered 56 year old publically stated so.

benway

djk1000 wrote: »

If you have a 1 in 100 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 month suspended sentence, lots of people would try it.

If you have a 1 in 1,000 chance of being caught and you would get a 6 year jail term, not many would try it.

That's the thinking anyway!

On a side note, increasing the chances of getting caught is a much, much better deterrent than increasing the penalty, or so say the studies ... that I've seen.

I would normally be dead set against prison in most cases, but I think it's important here that action is seen to be taken against white collar criminals, they've been getting away pretty much scot free for far too long.

44leto wrote:

I agree, but if I was the victim in those other crimes reported on tonights news I would feel it was an injustice the family of the murdered 56 year old publically stated so.

What?

Anyway, other crimes aren't relevant, the Central Criminal Court have put forward a strong justification of why it's necessary to impose custodial sentences in these cases - if you disagree with them on that, fair enough, but the comparison with completely different crimes doesn't stand up.

Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

I would tend to agree, but whether its right or wrong the courts have recognised deterrence as a valid aim in sentencing for a long time now. You people should really read that judgment ....

mconigol wrote: »

I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.

I agree with this as well, but prison is our default punishment, and I think that the need to treat white collar criminals with the same seriousness as common-or-garden "scumbags" overrides my distaste for prison as a punishment.

cock robin

mconigol wrote: »

Sentencing someone as a deterrent is inherently wrong. You should be punished based on the facts of the crime committed , not on the basis that your punished should serve as a deterrent to others.
I don't think that was the case here but the people calling for punishments as a deterrent obviously don't understand this principle.

I think he should have either received a sentence of less than 2 years or had his personal assets stripped. Possibly some kind of house arrest.

I don't see the point of locking someone up for a non-violent crime.

No what you don't see is that Begley is a criminal. Importing heroin is a non violent crime, so using your reckoning no custodial sentence, burglarly is a non violent crime = no custodial sentence, shop lifting = no custodial sentence. All this just cos one greedy fcuk got caught and people like you feel he should just stay at home for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Grow up.

DominoDub

In the Yin Yang world of Irish Law

Now we see a Man jailed for six years for abuse of daughter

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0312/mulveyr.html

l.m

cock robin wrote: »

No what you don't see is that Begley is a criminal. Importing heroin is a non violent crime, so using your reckoning no custodial sentence, burglarly is a non violent crime = no custodial sentence, shop lifting = no custodial sentence. All this just cos one greedy fcuk got caught and people like you feel he should just stay at home for a bit without his merc or plasma TV. Grow up.

No you grow up, stop judging him. He is the owner of a successful company which employes over 100 people, he did not bring his company to success without hard work. Your just jealous or plain ignorant.