Former Anglo finance director Willie McAteer charged over financial irregularities

With Quinn in Jail and and McAteer arrested is this the start of the summer of pay back for Fitzpatrick, Fingleton and co ? Will Cowen be following them ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0723/former-anglo-finance-director-to-be-charged.html

antoobrien

mayomaffia wrote: »

With Quinn in Jail and and McAteer arrested is this the start of the summer of pay back for Fitzpatrick, Fingleton and co ? Will Cowen be following them ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0723/former-anglo-finance-director-to-be-charged.html

It appears that they're going after McAteer for the "Golden Circle" deal, probably the easiest one to prove as being illegal. It shows just how complex the investigation is that it took 3 years to get to this point (the Gardaí really don't want to be left holding the can for an aquittal, so I'd rather them be slow and get the right people than do it fast and see them all get off).

Whatever about Fitzpatick and Fingers, I don't know what Cowen can be charged with. After all if incompetence and f**king were crimes we'd all end up in the 'joy at some stage.

PRAF

I'm not a legal eagle by any means but I always wondered why they didn't just go after one of two transgressions and try to hammer them for it. For example, with Fitz, why not go after the breach of company law for not disclosing his loans with Irish Nationwide? Hammer him on this, tell him you'll throw endless resources in order to get him on all the other transgressions, strike a bargain (i.e. if you admit these, we'll agree to drop these other ones), and then get a quick prosecution.

IMO it has just taken far too long for this investigation to conclude. I suspect it is the result of either gross incompetence or underresourcing of the ODCE

washman3

Why were there so many tv cameras present today??
was this orchestrated?? were the media informed beforehand that arrests were being made just to show the public that progress has been made?

Mr.Micro

washman3 wrote: »

Why were there so many tv cameras present today??
was this orchestrated?? were the media informed beforehand that arrests were being made just to show the public that progress has been made?

Who knows? What of the rest of the gang? This seems more to do with giving 6 Quinns money for shares. Probably precipitated by the events the other day.

PRAF

washman3 wrote: »

Why were there so many tv cameras present today??
was this orchestrated?? were the media informed beforehand that arrests were being made just to show the public that progress has been made?

I'd hazard a guess and say yes, totally manufactured for the cameras.

kippy

I suspect this is more of a PR stunt than anything else, however at least it is a step in the right direction.
It is the end result of this that will determine how I feel about it all. Bail was set at 10 grand and indeed paid for one of these guys. You'd expect a higher bail to be honest although it may be that the charge carries a relatively low sentence.

As for Cowen et al, he may have something to answer in that no documentation exists of the night that the banks came crying to government and indeed the people have no record of precisely what was said and by whom.

Mr.Micro

kippy wrote: »

I suspect this is more of a PR stunt than anything else, however at least it is a step in the right direction.
It is the end result of this that will determine how I feel about it all. Bail was set at 10 grand and indeed paid for one of these guys. You'd expect a higher bail to be honest although it may be that the charge carries a relatively low sentence.

As for Cowen et al, he may have something to answer in that no documentation exists of the night that the banks came crying to government and indeed the people have no record of precisely what was said and by whom.

It says a lot of the the last lot, an utter disgrace to to the country there there appears to be very little documentation. Does Cowen feel any shame and the mess he helped create? By the very lack of paperwork suggests a massive cover up and underhandedness IMO. Good thing he has gone on a course to Stanford in recent weeks, maybe to learn basic economics.

http://tomasoflatharta.com/2012/07/08/stanford-university-california-ex-taoiseach-brian-cowen-is-a-58000-student-on-a-six-week-course/

AlekSmart

kippy wrote: »

As for Cowen et al, he may have something to answer in that no documentation exists of the night that the banks came crying to government and indeed the people have no record of precisely what was said and by whom.

The above post represents the absolute basic necessity for any succesful prosecutions.

The fact that at this remove,we still have no idea of who exactly cane calling and of who said what,or more importantly,what was agreed between all of these eminent persons.

Every single action which has occured since has had it's genus in those few hours......We (The People) NEED to bloody well know the truth.

FWIW,I believe the Quinn family had a far more significant role in all of the events than is curently known...lets see how the cards fall !!

hatrickpatrick

Delighted to see this happen. If convicted, each count carries a potential 5 year sentence and a €3,000 fine - if they're found guilty let's hope the Irish courts show some rare balls and actually give them meaningful penalties.

It brings up an interesting sub question though. The Maple 10 (AKA Golden Circle) loans are the loans being targeted in this particular arrest.
If it's proven in court that this deal was illegal, could the Maple 10 themselves also be charged? With conspiracy, perhaps, or with the same offenses McAteer is being charged with?

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Delighted to see this happen. If convicted, each count carries a potential 5 year sentence and a €3,000 fine - if they're found guilty let's hope the Irish courts show some rare balls and actually give them meaningful penalties.

It brings up an interesting sub question though. The Maple 10 (AKA Golden Circle) loans are the loans being targeted in this particular arrest.
If it's proven in court that this deal was illegal, could the Maple 10 themselves also be charged? With conspiracy, perhaps, or with the same offenses McAteer is being charged with?

Why should they escape charges?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Why should they escape charges?

Do you mean household charges or legal charges. I think they will not escape household charges TBH. ???

hatrickpatrick

MadsL wrote: »

Why should they escape charges?

Because this is Ireland, and people who do sh!t like that generally do escape charges.
I'm expecting some kind of "GIVING a dodgy loan is illegal, but technically accepting one is not" argument, or something to that effect.

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because this is Ireland, and people who do sh!t like that generally do escape charges.
I'm expecting some kind of "GIVING a dodgy loan is illegal, but technically accepting one is not" argument, or something to that effect.

Wouldn't insider trading laws kick in? Buying shares on the secret advice of the company being traded?

Dirk Gently

Sean Fitz picked up this morning,

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0724/former-anglo-chief-sean-fitzpatrick-arrested.html

djpbarry

PRAF wrote: »

I'm not a legal eagle by any means...
...
IMO it has just taken far too long for this investigation to conclude.

Based on your extensive experience of building cases against white collar criminals? Have people taken into consideration that the likes of Seán Fitzpatrick are likely to have substantial legal aid at their disposal and any case brought against them is going to have to be absolutely watertight?

Probably also worth pointing out that nobody has been convicted of anything yet.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because this is Ireland...

As opposed to the rest of the world, where prisons are chock full of white-collar criminals?

mike65

No need to get excited yet, there is some distance between arrest and being charged and the charges sticking and the DPP deciding there is enough evidence to send the charged to trial and then there's the trial and proving the case.

Still, better than nothing.

Mr.Micro

mike65 wrote: »

No need to get excited yet, there is some distance between arrest and being charged and the charges sticking and the DPP deciding there is enough evidence to send the charged to trial and then there's the trial and proving the case.

Still, better than nothing.

It appears the charges against Fitzpatrick are similar to those of the 2 finance guys yesterday and carry a fine of €3000 each, small beer in comparision to the billions squandered. Its in relation to giving unlawful financial assistance to the Quinns and the another 10 individuals to buy Anglo shares ( insider dealing in any other country lol). The authorities stung into some sort of action with the case against 3 0f the Quinns ongoing? Will we ever see the major case against Anglo brought to the fore or is this all we will get?

This opens up another matter, in that the Quinns were going to challenge the loan of the 3billions as being unlawful, and that they should not have to pay it back on those grounds.

It looks like the State will prove their case, with the Quinns as star witnesses for the state, and themselves, lol? This may be the reason why the Quinns think he can hold on to the 500 million assets because they will get out of owing the 3 billions. Its all a big game IMO.

djpbarry

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It appears the charges against Fitzpatrick are similar to those of the 2 finance guys yesterday and carry a fine of €3000 each...

And a maximum sentence of 5 years per charge.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will we ever see the major case against Anglo brought to the fore or is this all we will get?

A case is being brought against the company directors, who will face prison if convicted – what more do you want?

Sponge Bob

Willie was charged under section 60(15) of the 1963 act which means he was ALSO charged under another subsection of section 60, eg 60(1)

60.—(1) Subject to subsections (2), (12) and (13), it shall not be lawful for a company to give, whether directly or indirectly, and whether by means of a loan, guarantee, the provision of security or otherwise, any financial assistance for the purpose of or in connection with a purchase or subscription made or to be made by any person of or for any shares in the company, or, where the company is a subsidiary company, in its holding company.

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to the giving of financial assistance by a company if—

(a) such financial assistance is given under the authority of a special resolution of the company passed not more than 12 months previously; and

(b) the company has forwarded with each notice of the meeting at which the special resolution is to be considered a copy of a statutory declaration which complies with subsections (3) and (4) and also delivers, on the same day as such notices are issued, a copy of the declaration to the registrar of companies for registration.

(3) The statutory declaration shall be made at a meeting of the directors held not more than 24 days before the said meeting and shall be made by the directors or, in the case of a company having more than two directors, by a majority of the directors.

(4) The statutory declaration shall state—

(a) the form which such assistance is to take;

(b) the persons to whom such assistance is to be given;

(c) the purpose for which the company intends those persons to use such assistance;

(d) that the declarants have made a full inquiry into the affairs of the company and that, having done so, they have formed the opinion that the company, having carried out the transaction whereby such assistance is to be given, will be able to pay its debts in full as they become due.

(5) Any director of a company making the statutory declaration without having reasonable grounds for the opinion that the company having carried out the transaction whereby such assistance is to be given will be able to pay its debts in full as they become due, shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both; and if the company is wound up within the period of 12 months after the making of the statutory declaration and its debts are not paid or provided for in full within the period of 12 months after the commencement of the winding up, it shall be presumed until the contrary is shown that the director did not have reasonable grounds for his opinion.

(6) Notwithstanding anything in the articles of association of the company, every member of the company shall have the right to receive notice of and to attend the meeting at which the special resolution is to be proposed.

(7) Unless all of the members of the company entitled to vote at general meetings of the company vote in favour of the special resolution, the transaction whereby such assistance is to be given shall not be carried out before the expiry of 30 days after such special resolution has been passed or, if an application under subsection (8) is made, until such application has been disposed of by the court.

(8) If application is made to the court in accordance with this section for the cancellation of the special resolution, such special resolution shall not have effect except to the extent to which it is confirmed by the court.

(9) Subject to subsection (10), an application under subsection (8) may be made by the holders of not less in the aggregate than 10 per cent. in nominal value of the company's issued share capital or any class thereof.

(10) An application shall not be made under subsection (8) by any person who has consented to or voted in favour of the special resolution.

(11) An application under subsection (8) must be made within 28 days after the date on which the special resolution was passed and may be made on behalf of the persons entitled to make the application by such one or more of their number as they may appoint in writing for the purpose.

(12) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prohibit the payment of a dividend properly declared by a company or the discharge of a liability lawfully incurred by it.

(13) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prohibit—

(a) where the lending of money is part of the ordinary business of the company, the lending of money by the company in the ordinary course of its business;

(b) the provision by a company, in accordance with any scheme for the time being in force, of money for the purchase of, or subscription for, fully paid shares in the company or its holding company, being a purchase or subscription of or for shares to be held by or for the benefit of employees or former employees of the company or of any subsidiary of the company including any person who is or was a director holding a salaried employment or office in the company or any subsidiary of the company;

(c) the making by a company of loans to persons, other than directors, bona fide in the employment of the company or any subsidiary of the company with a view to enabling those persons to purchase or subscribe for fully paid shares in the company or its holding company to be held by themselves as beneficial owners thereof.

(14) Any transaction in breach of this section shall be voidable at the instance of the company against any person (whether a party to the transaction or not) who had notice of the facts which constitute such breach.

(15) If a company acts in contravention of this section every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable:

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding £500 or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both.

However Section 60 cannot be used against Quinns or Goldenbollixes as Section 60 only applies to oficers ( directors and secretary)

But WAIT!!! What about section 90 and a Quinns vs Maple 10 scenario.

90.—If any person falsely and deceitfully personates any owner of any share or interest in any company, or of any share warrant or coupon, issued in pursuance of this Act, and thereby obtains or endeavours to obtain any such share or interest or share warrant or coupon, or receives or endeavours to receive any money due to any such owner, or votes at any meeting, as if the offender were the true and lawful owner, he shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding £500 or to both, or, on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding £100 or to both.

Seems that you could charge the whole lot of them were a Section 60 conviction obtained first, those charged to date and the Quinns and the Maple 10 ....ALL of them.

Of course we have no idea how these Section 60 cases will go. !!

Mr.Micro

djpbarry wrote: »

And a maximum sentence of 5 years per charge.
A case is being brought against the company directors, who will face prison if convicted – what more do you want?

You sure about that? May face prison or a fine, 6 months or €100 it looks like to me, according to the info posted by spongebob post 20, where you got the 5 years from ? Its small change compared to the billions lost. Relying on an act from 1963 as well shows how the State is not even up to date with corporate laws. Pathetic.

Laminations

djpbarry wrote: »

And a maximum sentence of 5 years per charge.
A case is being brought against the company directors, who will face prison if convicted – what more do you want?

While I'm glad charges have finally been brought (and I'll be very glad if convictions and jail sentences follow) I'm not sure the maximum penalties fit the crimes. Are you sure it's 5 years per charge? And do you wanna bet the word concurrent won't make an appearance should imprisonment occur? They need to be financially humiliated, rather than lengthy prison stretches. They are not a danger to society or violent in any way. But when I say financially humiliated I mean ruin. Stripped of all assets including family assets and any relatives purchase funded by Anglo profits - it is all profiting from crime. That'll never happen. So failing appropriate financial ruin, long spells in prison must be the consequence.

Anyway im glad the long 3 year preparatory phase of this is over but I expect a protracted legal battle as the bankrupts manage to lawyer up with the best legal teams money can buy.

Mr.Micro

Laminations wrote: »

While I'm glad charges have finally been brought (and I'll be very glad if convictions and jail sentences follow) I'm not sure the maximum penalties fit the crimes. Are you sure it's 5 years per charge? And do you wanna bet the word concurrent won't make an appearance should imprisonment occur? They need to be financially humiliated, rather than lengthy prison stretches. They are not a danger to society or violent in any way. But when I say financially humiliated I mean ruin. Stripped of all assets including family assets and any relatives purchase funded by Anglo profits - it is all profiting from crime. That'll never happen. So failing appropriate financial ruin, long spells in prison must be the consequence.

Anyway im glad the long 3 year preparatory phase of this is over but I expect a protracted legal battle as the bankrupts manage to lawyer up with the best legal teams money can buy.

With regard to the information kindly supplied by Sponge Bob,

5) Any director of a company making the statutory declaration without having reasonable grounds for the opinion that the company having carried out the transaction whereby such assistance is to be given will be able to pay its debts in full as they become due, shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding £100

It seems likely that the fines would be, if found guilty on all charges of course, 16 times £100= £1600. This law is so old that its still in pounds. I am sure these boys will not be too concerned if that is the maximum that they will have to pay, if found guilty. This law is so outdated that it is laughable.

MadsL

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It seems likely that the fines would be, if found guilty on all charges of course, 16 times £100= £1600.

And the little fucker will claim he cannot pay because of bankruptcy :mad:

djpbarry

Laminations wrote: »

Are you sure it's 5 years per charge?

I'm only going by what I read in the Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0724/1224320711161.html

Mr.Micro

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Will we ever see the major case against Anglo brought to the fore or is this all we will get?

Before anyone jumps down my throat, and presuming there are no more charges laid against the 3 at the former Anglo Irish Bank, or that I am wrong......

It occurs to me that the outdated and ineffective 1963 act is all that the authorities can use against the 3 from the former Anglo, after three and a half years of deliberation? There are probably no current laws to cover the antics that went on at Anglo such as inappropriate loans to each other and to whoever, aside from the Quinns and other financial rackets including insider dealing, a big crime in other countries I do believe.

The irony therefore, is that, its like being charged with shoplifting when you have taken the contents of the store, the warehouse and all your customers money. It has cost in the region of €30 billions to bail out Anglo so far.The naive State needs to learn from this and enact new appropriate laws for the future that will be a real deterrent against corporate crime not just the tap on the wrist that these boys may get because there appears to be no laws to adequately prosecute them in this country.

antoobrien

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The irony therefore, is that, its like being charged with shoplifting when you have taken the contents of the store, the warehouse and all your customers money. It has cost in the region of €30 billions to bail out Anglo so far.The naive State needs to learn from this and enact new appropriate laws for the future that will be a real deterrent against corporate crime not just the tap on the wrist that these boys may get because there appears to be no laws to adequately prosecute them in this country.

The difference being if that much was "shoplifted" the charge would be larceny.

I agree that laws should be written or updated however there's two problems with that:
Some of our laws are almost impossible to prove (fraud is notoriously difficult to get a conviction on here) so are seldom used
The new laws or updates can't be retroactive (constitutionally), so they wouldn't apply to the these guys regardless

I know it's a case of bolting the door too late, but for the future they need to make the guys at the top responsible for the wrong doings of their underlings - that way if there is a corporate ethos of bad behaviour (like there appears to have been in Anglo & IN) the top dogs will have to carry the can.

Laminations

If convictions are secured, the judge in their wisdom, bearing in mind the consequences for the country due to the actions of these bankers, and knowing the prosecutions have been heavily constrained by out of date laws, use the full flexibility they have in sentencing, conferring the maximum lengths allowable and thoroughly exploring consecutive sentences. 16 charges with a max of 5 years per charge shouldn't result in less than 5 years, but I fear it will.

Robbo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You sure about that? May face prison or a fine, 6 months or €100 it looks like to me, according to the info posted by spongebob post 20, where you got the 5 years from ? Its small change compared to the billions lost. Relying on an act from 1963 as well shows how the State is not even up to date with corporate laws. Pathetic.

Surprisingly, legislation is amended now and then. Quick searches of the Irish Statute Book website are prone to being thrown way off. The Companies Acts have had a huge amount of amendments and additions since the principle Act in 1963. Put is this way, I'm looking at a consolidated Companies Acts (1963-2006) book here and the principle 1963 act makes up just over 300 pages. All that came after that in terms of amendments, related acts and secondary legislation makes up over 1300 pages.

Where the papers are getting the "5 years" thing is from when S.60 (15) of the 1963 Act, was amended twice to bring the penalty up from 6 months imprisonment. The first change was in the Companies Act (1990) Section 240(8), the second change was in the Company Law Enforcement Act of 2001 Section 104(c). Here's where a book of consolidated legislation pays for itself.

The Company Law Reform Group recently published the general scheme of an entirely new Companies Bill just in case you keep wanting to push the idea uphill that we're hopelessly reliant on antiquated legislation. This is not to say that I think that the current legislation is adequate.

djpbarry

Laminations wrote: »

If convictions are secured, the judge in their wisdom, bearing in mind the consequences for the country due to the actions of these bankers, and knowing the prosecutions have been heavily constrained by out of date laws, use the full flexibility they have in sentencing, conferring the maximum lengths allowable and thoroughly exploring consecutive sentences. 16 charges with a max of 5 years per charge shouldn't result in less than 5 years, but I fear it will.

I hesitate to say it, but nobody has even been found guilty of a crime yet. Aren't people getting a touch ahead of themselves? I mean, I know everyone loves a scapegoat, but as things stand, our knowledge of what happened at Anglo is fairly limited.

Laminations

djpbarry wrote: »

I hesitate to say it, but nobody has even been found guilty of a crime yet. Aren't people getting a touch ahead of themselves? I mean, I know everyone loves a scapegoat, but as things stand, our knowledge of what happened at Anglo is fairly limited.

Hence I said 'if convictions are secured'

And we know enough about them moving loans off books and giving totally unsecrued huge loans to buy shares for us not to pretend they are scapegoats. Guilt has already been established beyond reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned - but I'll let the court decide

djpbarry

Laminations wrote: »

Guilt has already been established beyond reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned - but I'll let the court decide

Will you? If they are acquitted, will you accept the court's decision? Because I doubt the general populace will.

Laminations

djpbarry wrote: »

Will you? If they are acquitted, will you accept the court's decision? Because I doubt the general populace will.

I'll let the courts decide the consequence. Im not in the vigilante justice business. I've already said in my eyes they are guilty. And you'll find many threads where I criticise the judgements of the courts.

From these comments I take it you've yet to make up your mind on these men and their transgressions? Did you need the tribunal to tell you how to think about Bertie? I could understand your point if over the last 4 years there'd been a dearth of reporting on the sequence of events and transactions and individuals involved in Anglos mismanagement, but there wasn't so I don't

djpbarry

Laminations wrote: »

From these comments I take it you've yet to make up your mind on these men and their transgressions?

I think they’re probably guilty of something – no smoke without fire and all that.

However, let’s face it, Seán Fitzpatrick is the face of Ireland’s economic crisis and I do worry about what will happen if he is either acquitted or avoids prison. The public wants their pound of flesh.

Sponge Bob

If you look closely into matters you will see that Mark Duffy of BOSI was even worse than Seánie in many ways, however Duffy did not organise a share support scheme.

Laminations

djpbarry wrote: »

I think they’re probably guilty of something – no smoke without fire and all that.

However, let’s face it, Seán Fitzpatrick is the face of Ireland’s economic crisis and I do worry about what will happen if he is either acquitted or avoids prison. The public wants their pound of flesh.

Well I'll put it this way. I won't be happen if enquiries and prosecutions stop with Sean Fitzpatrick. You may think people perceive him to be the personification of the bust but I give them more credit than that. They won't stop calling for blood after he's bled dry

Shea O'Meara

djpbarry wrote: »

I hesitate to say it, but nobody has even been found guilty of a crime yet. Aren't people getting a touch ahead of themselves? I mean, I know everyone loves a scapegoat, but as things stand, our knowledge of what happened at Anglo is fairly limited.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think they’re probably guilty of something – no smoke without fire and all that.

However, let’s face it, Seán Fitzpatrick is the face of Ireland’s economic crisis and I do worry about what will happen if he is either acquitted or avoids prison. The public wants their pound of flesh.

Terms such as 'Scape goat' & 'Pound of flesh' seem to say the public has less knowledge about the whole financial crisis then you obviously give them credit for and to me states that you feel the public don't know or care who is to blame as long as somebody gets the blame.
This is not the case and belittles this whole disgrace of fraud and undue burden on the taxpaying public. It's the kind of talk one would expect from someone stirring in the hopes it will all go away or be placed in the Joe Duffy vault. Which would be the real crime.

I'm reminded of a seemingly 'by the way' remark on another thread..

Canvasser wrote: »

After the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the global downturn it was inevitable there would be a recession in Ireland.

More smoke and mirrors to detract from any serious debate on ownership.
I'm pleasantly suprised anyone is getting charged in relation to anything after decades of FFail and rampant fraud.

djpbarry

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...you feel the public don't know or care who is to blame as long as somebody gets the blame.

Not exactly – I think that a very significant portion of the public want to see bankers and politicians take the blame.

kippy

djpbarry wrote: »

Not exactly – I think that a very significant portion of the public want to see bankers and politicians take the blame.

Possibly.
Then there are those, like myself, who believe strongly that there were laws broken and that there are certain individuals who deserve to be investigated, charged and punished for this.
While I am sure, you seem to be of the opinion that each and every one of us holds some level of "blame" (which to a point may be correct), there were a only a select few amongst us who made key decisions that needed to be investigated.
As I have stated in the past, there is no way that this society will improve when there is a conception that there is one justice for them and another for "us". Us being politicians, bankers, top ranking civil servants, powerful business people etc.

djpbarry

kippy wrote: »

Then there are those, like myself, who believe strongly that there were laws broken...

You believe there were laws broken or you suspect there were laws broken?

kippy wrote: »

As I have stated in the past, there is no way that this society will improve when there is a conception that there is one justice for them and another for "us".

I’m not suggesting that criminals should not be brought to justice – of course they should. However, what you’re referring to here is the broad area of fraud and corruption. That’s something that has to be tackled from the bottom up, not the top down.

kippy

djpbarry wrote: »

You believe there were laws broken or you suspect there were laws broken?
I’m not suggesting that criminals should not be brought to justice – of course they should. However, what you’re referring to here is the broad area of fraud and corruption. That’s something that has to be tackled from the bottom up, not the top down.

I firmly believe there were laws broken. Whether prosecutions can be made based on the evidence left is another matter altogether, as indeed is the will to investigate and prosecute all those responsible.....

Tackled from the bottom up, should be tackled at every level and indeed is tackled a lot more at the lower levels than the "top". The guy on the street's ability to bring a country to it's knees is rather limited, is it not, no matter the type of fraud or corruption (not that they shouldn't be investigated and prosecuted as well)
As I said in the past, when you see guys like Callelly and his ilk, get away with, what only can be described as fraud, what type of message does that give to others in society?

djpbarry

kippy wrote: »

As I said in the past, when you see guys like Callelly and his ilk, get away with, what only can be described as fraud, what type of message does that give to others in society?

When you see guys like Michael Lowry consistently topping the polls, election after election, what type of message does that send out?

kippy

djpbarry wrote: »

When you see guys like Michael Lowry consistently topping the polls, election after election, what type of message does that send out?

Indeed, but topping polls does or rather should not, mean immunity for prosecution for anything........
Popular people should be treated like the rest of us when it comes to the law.