Anglo Tapes

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why not? Why not the accounting treatment I referred to, or the legislative protections?

Because they didn't apply at the time hence no one was using them as a basis for their decision making.

Maybe they should have been doing so but they weren't...

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Because they didn't apply at the time hence no one was using them as a basis for their decision making.

Maybe they should have been doing so but they weren't...

What do you mean they didn't apply at the time, don't you understand that's the question I'm asking you? There was no rule prohibiting such an accounting treatment as i proposed or debt buyback or emergency legislation, I don't know what you're talking about here. These protections are features of the default event or restructuring event as it would emerge in its course.

Chips Lovell

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The Gardai seized the tapes four years ago. How exactly they got to the Independent is unknown.

At least three different groups had copies of the tapes, according to the Times today:

The family of bankrupt businessman Seán Quinn, the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement are among those who have copies of some of the recordings.

Gloomtastic!

Dammit Scofflaw, you make an interesting argument! (How the hell are you doing any work though! )

I've a couple of problems with all this....

1. The night of the Guarantee. Why no documentation, no recordings, no minutes? That has to be the ace up any conspiracy theorist's sleeve. If they have nothing to hide ie they were just incompetent idiots, then why destroy all the evidence?

2. Post Guarantee. We've had two Chairmen in Anglo, working on the State's behalf seemingly. They didn't find, or have not revealed publicly, any evidence that corresponds with these recordings. Why not? If they destroyed evidence, and I believe it would be hard to hide such a large hole in the books when you know what you're looking for, then surely that's a criminal offence.

I'm waiting to see what's the biggie in tomorrow's Indo before I decide to go on this march or not. I think they're saving the best til last. :eek:

Dannyboy83

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that makes people think that when I say "no, they were probably trying to do their best, but were honestly incompetent and suffering from the handicap of a decade of their own policy of negligence" I'm somehow excusing them, because I'm not getting on the 100% condemnation bandwagon.
That's not correct, though - I'd be happy to see them imprisoned (since we've given up the death penalty) on that basis. I don't need them to be villains - for me, it's quite sufficient that they were self-satisfied and self-deluding idiots, because they were in positions of responsibility. Nor is spreading the responsibility a way of excusing anyone - on the contrary, focusing on one or two individual politicians excuses a rather large number of senior civil servants who are, from my perspective, equally if not more deserving of prison time.

No, in fairness you've been more than clear that you hold nothing but disdain for them, so you shouldn't think that anyone perceives you as excusing them, that is definitely not the case.

I can't agree with your position when there are so many unanswered questions regarding Sean Quinn's exposure and the alleged instruction to the NTMA to bail out Anglo, I'm of the opinion that's it a very fine example of Plausible Deniability - however, I accept it's currently conjecture and I understand that you need more substantial evidence before your position can change.

Thanks for explaining your opinion.

Chips Lovell

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

2. Post Guarantee. We've had two Chairmen in Anglo, working on the State's behalf seemingly. They didn't find, or have not revealed publicly, any evidence that corresponds with these recordings. Why not? If they destroyed evidence, and I believe it would be hard to hide such a large hole in the books when you know what you're looking for, then surely that's a criminal offence.

Given that the tapes, and plenty more, are already in the hands of the Guards and the ODCE, why do you think they are sitting on evidence?

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What do you mean they didn't apply at the time, don't you understand that's the question I'm asking you? There was no rule prohibiting such an accounting treatment as i proposed or debt buyback or emergency legislation, I don't know what you're talking about here. These protections are features of the default event or restructuring event as it would emerge in its course.

I was pointing out that they did not apply at the time. I wasn't getting into what could have applied had the Oireachtas decided to follow a different course of action than the one it chose.

I would imagine the politicians believed that they were engaged in damage control and were seeking to minimise the damage. Since we don't have the option of running "real-time" simulations to see what was the best decision they should have made, it is a bit of a moot point at this stage.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

I was pointing out that they did not apply at the time. I wasn't getting into what could have applied had the Oireachtas decided to follow a different course of action than the one it chose.

Then your contribution amounts to relaying the fact that there was no restructuring. Ok...I don't see the relevance. Nobody is disputing the fact that there was no restructuring.

I am responding to the simplistic line that gets dredged up in relation to parental pensions. Whatever pensions or trusts were still invested in the Irish banking system could have been managed using legislation, or buybacks, or by non inclusion of security held to maturity.

K-9

One of the Indo journalists said the source wasn't disgruntled over the slow pace of the investigations, that would suggest to me it is somebody who is aware of the complexity of the investigation, how pain stakingly slow it is and probably thinks now is the opportune time to release them.

The journalist also suggested it wasn't one source, and they've got new stuff recently, as in the last week or so. I really don't get the conspiracy or political side to it. It's in the public interest that we get to hear the tapes and that's all that matters to me.

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I may of course have got a little carried away...no, it's obviously not something that can be ignored in itself, and if it were a systemic issue then I would consider it as very serious indeed. That is, if the banks were somehow going around their Regulator to let the Taoiseach know their real position on a regular basis, and the Taoiseach was then arranging things in favour of the banks while keeping their Regulator in the dark, that would obviously be a huge issue.

First off the regulator was always a joke, not looking after anyone's interest bar that of the banks.
As can be shown by the first regulator, liam o'reilly, who in my opinion should have been charged with dereliction of duty when he affectively lent on AIB auditor Eugene McErlean to withdraw allegations of overcharging against his employer AIB.
In fact when we talk of freedom of information and recordings of meetings, just remember Eugene McErlean had to go to the European Commission in 2008 to get the notes and minutes of his meeting with former IFSRA head, liam o'reilly, released to him.
Now if that organisation would not release information detailing minutes about an overcharging conversation (relating to over charging of around 60 odd million) then as sure as hell they would not release or probably even keep notes on matters such as bailing out the the mulit billion mess they had allowed in the Irish banks.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In this case, though, that's not what's being claimed. I'm not even sure exactly what's being claimed, other than "Cowen knew" (knew what?) and that because (?) of whatever he knew he then "corruptly" (?) included Anglo in the blanket guarantee. Unfortunately, that doesn't make a blind bit of sense to me. The "corruptly" seems to be in there because otherwise it's more sensible to say that if Cowen did know that Anglo was completely screwed, he would have done his best to avoid the utter political disaster of including them in the guarantee, because they would have a very good chance of bringing the whole house of cards down around everybody's ears.

cowen probably didn't know the full extent to exactly how bad it was (they proably told him in terms of how many pints so guiness they needed), but it is inconceivable that he hadn't an idea it was bad.

The downfall of Anglo didn't just suddenly appear in Sept 2008, it's slide had been signposted for months.
And in those months cowen and others had dinners, rounds of golf, etc with Anglo executives and board members.

Hell even the plebs in the street were getting wind of bad things in the banks and had started moving their money to the Post Office and calling joe duffy.

The idea of the guarantee was just to kick the can down the road.
Sure with a state gurantee wouldn't everything be hunky dory.
But a few saw the error and I remember some pointing out, even around these parts, that the Irish state could never ever guarantee the whole shooting match.

Elsewhere you did point to something very relevant here.
Top people in Dept of Finance, CB and IFSRA, some of whom are probably still around today had to have an inkling of what way the wind was blowing.
Ireland is not that big and people talk.

There is a permanent government in Ireland, just like in the UK, and these people will always try and protect themselves and their position.
The names and faces may change, but they always protect their patch and if that means protecting their errant forebearers then so be it.
Look how excercised the judiciary got when it thought it was being threatened even with just a pay cut.

Yes you can call me a conspiracist all you want, but there is no way top people in the civil service will ever accept any of the blame for this mess.
And there are people within the top echelons of the Dept of Finance and regulatory authorities who should be hung drawn and quartered for their negligence.
Blaming one or two bankers and a couple of politicans is simplistic.

BTW can someone confirm that two of the stars of these Anglo tapes were working, courtesy of the taxpayers, for IBRC until quiet recent ?

Mr.Micro

K-9 wrote: »

One of the Indo journalists said the source wasn't disgruntled over the slow pace of the investigations, that would suggest to me it is somebody who is aware of the complexity of the investigation, how pain stakingly slow it is and probably thinks now is the opportune time to release them.

The journalist also suggested it wasn't one source, and they've got new stuff recently, as in the last week or so. I really don't get the conspiracy or political side to it. It's in the public interest that we get to hear the tapes and that's all that matters to me.

In fairness would you blame people for thinking that there was political intrigue involved in all this? The politicians were in bed with the developers that is fact, so by extrapulation and conjecture people may believe wrongly, or otherwise that political power/ influence was brought to bear. Developers were involved with Anglo as well, so its a heady mix. I personally will hope to see if an inquiry turns up anything, but more questions may be thrown up than are answered, especially with the limitations or remit of any inquiry.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Then your contribution amounts to relaying the fact that there was no restructuring. Ok...I don't see the relevance. Nobody is disputing the fact that there was no restructuring.

I am responding to the simplistic line that gets dredged up in relation to parental pensions. Whatever pensions or trusts were still invested in the Irish banking system could have been managed using legislation, or buybacks, or by non inclusion of security held to maturity.

Of course the Oireachtas could have gone for such a scenario - they choose not to do so. That's their prerogative.

The Oireachtas may just have reckoned it would have been an even bigger headache to deal with.

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

I have my doubts particularly if they also faced having most of their personal pension wiped out at the same time.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

... that's what we did.

We have covered everyone who presented a docket (or in reality, those who bought the dockets off fleeing pensions funds).

Instead of just covering pension funds or trusts, ideally via buybacks. The latter, or some variation thereof, would have resulted in burning interbank investors in Anglo, for example, whilst protecting pensioners.

Lbeard

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where are all the people on boards from the past few years that blamed the EU and Eurozone completely for this mess. It's quite clear that this was totally mismanaged at many levels and we were an easy mark for the con.

The argument was, in relation to the EU.....even from the early 90s........That we couldn't be trusted, and we would do precisely what we have done...............And that's what we did.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

... that's what we did.

We have covered everyone who presented a docket (or in reality, those who bought the dockets off fleeing pensions funds).

Instead of just covering pension funds or trusts, ideally via buybacks. The latter, or some variation thereof, would have resulted in burning interbank investors in Anglo, for example, whilst protecting pensioners.

Not quite. We provided the funds to the banks who paid their (the banks) bond holders. That kept the banks "operational" but it meant covering all the bond holders irrespective of whether they were EU or non-EU.

Perhaps this was because the number of non-EU bond holders was believed to be very small?

Or, perhaps, the government wanted new non-EU investors to loan us money for our immediate spending needs? A significant amount of the EFSF monies loaned to us was raised from "Asian investors" (by the EFSF selling bonds to them) if I remember correctly.

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

Not quite. We provided the funds to the banks who paid their (the banks) bond holders.

You're not even keeping up with your own post history in this thread at this stage. Earlier:

View wrote: »

The Oireachtas may just have reckoned it would have been an even bigger headache to deal with.

As it is, it would have meant covering all EU pensions or funds invested in Irish banks (not just Irish ones). Would the tax-payer be much happier with that?

Now whatever that was supposed to mean (since as it happened all the relevant securities were paid for) you appear to believe that the tax payer is covering these securities. Yet, when someone suggests that the taxpayer is already covering these securities, it's "er, well, actually the bank is paying for them.."

Ridiculous.

it meant covering all the bond holders irrespective of whether they were EU or non-EU.

I haven't raised an issue regarding EU or non EU.

I've raised pensions - for example, the buyback of pension holdings of senior Anglo securities, where absolutely necessary to safeguard pensioners' interests.

Remember, like the liability management exercise in 2010? That, and the pro note and the initial billions of capital injected into Anglo preceded the establishment of the EFSF, nevermind its arrival here. The EFSF is irrelevant, as is the EU-IMF programme that came well after a significant chunk of Irish GDP being dumped in the un-dead bank.

View

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're not even keeping up with your own post history in this thread at this stage. Earlier:

Now whatever that was supposed to mean

If you don't understand something that is your problem. It certainly wouldn't hurt for you to seek clarification rather than make assumptions.

You should be capable of distinguishing between discussion on what we could have done but didn't (i.e. just letting the banks fail and either guaranteeing or not those bonds held directly by pension trusts and funds with direct payments from the state) or what we did (provide capital to the banks which repaid all bond holders irrespective of whether they were pension related or not - i.e. the banks did the repayment).

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I haven't raised an issue regarding EU or non EU.

I've raised pensions - for example, the buyback of pension holdings of senior Anglo securities, where absolutely necessary to safeguard pensioners' interests.

Fair enough but you'll probably find the politicians weren't quite as narrowly focused when making their decisions as you. They have to deal with bond holders on a year in, year out basis and were always going to be cautious about upsetting them. They weren't interested in pursuing your favoured solution whether you like it or not.

K-9

Mr.Micro wrote: »

In fairness would you blame people for thinking that there was political intrigue involved in all this? The politicians were in bed with the developers that is fact, so by extrapulation and conjecture people may believe wrongly, or otherwise that political power/ influence was brought to bear. Developers were involved with Anglo as well, so its a heady mix. I personally will hope to see if an inquiry turns up anything, but more questions may be thrown up than are answered, especially with the limitations or remit of any inquiry.

It does seem a bit coincidental that this comes after the fuss over McGuinness, maybe somebody felt political in fighting was over shadowing the important stuff, but as was pointed out 3 separate groups had the tapes. I don't understand why it took 4 years to release them, that wouldn't tie in with political intrigue and trying to damage opponents, they aren't very good at it if it is the motive! As shocking as they are they'd have been even more explosive a couple of years ago.

It could well be that the Guards are finished with the tapes, all the parties involved have been interviewed so leaking them now wouldn't do any damage to the investigations.

Noreen1

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, the banks cant claim to be all that clever themselves. They're plotting a criminal conspiracy on office telephones they know (or ought to know) are routinely taped. Dumb and dumber leaps to mind.

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

K-9 wrote: »

It does seem a bit coincidental that this comes after the fuss over McGuinness, maybe somebody felt political in fighting was over shadowing the important stuff, but as was pointed out 3 separate groups had the tapes. I don't understand why it took 4 years to release them, that wouldn't tie in with political intrigue and trying to damage opponents, they aren't very good at it if it is the motive! As shocking as they are they'd have been even more explosive a couple of years ago.

It could well be that the Guards are finished with the tapes, all the parties involved have been interviewed so leaking them now wouldn't do any damage to the investigations.

Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.





Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.[/QUOTE]

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.

To be fair, they're obviously under a lot of stress - the jokey bravado is a little on the hysterical side. The initial Bowe-Fitzgerald exchange is a classic of its kind - each making unfunny jokes to show how cool they are under the stress, which the each in turn completely misses because they're so stressed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this.

Possibly. As I said, it's hard to say.

Hopefully, we may find out some day, preferably after there have been some criminal convictions.

I'm off to bed - I've a 6.30 am start in the morning.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Or, they believed their scam would work, and/or, they would be protected from any fallout?
Criminal conspiracy only matters if you believe there will be a prosecution.
These guys don't appear to have believed there would be - and, personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence like that, unless they believed there would be no consequences to their actions.

It's a hard one to call - but I find it hard to believe that people in such positions of authority were inherently stupid - which begs the question, why the overwhelming arrogance?

I'd say it was the other way round, I'm sure these guys aren't stupid but their arrogance and belief in their own self-publicity led them to make stupid decisions. It was a very common thing during the bubble, particularly near the end, I'm sure plenty of posters knew similar types in their own areas.

As for prosecution, I'd say that wasn't an important consideration at the time, keeping the bank open and keeping their jobs more so. The male bravado is often a cover with stuff like this, it's in the culture so even when in the sh*t like this, they still had to play up to the caricature.

Also, the Government was in awe at the tax revenues flowing in largely funded by the banks, they had the Galway tent, the IFSC, they had a lot to be arrogant about, rightly or wrongly, even calling the shots to the regulator.

Possibly.
It is, of course, equally possible that these guys are being fed to us to take the limelight off someone else.

It's impossible to take even a wild guess, though, without knowing who released the information - and whether they are "connected" to anyone who has a vested interest/something to gain, from the release of the recordings.

Except we've even more tapes coming out, and even the stuff we have makes the regulators, Central Bank and Government look bad as it, not that most of us didn't know that anyway. It's intriguing to get the warts and all views from Anglo though.

Mr.Micro

K-9 wrote: »

Except we've even more tapes coming out, and even the stuff we have makes the regulators, Central Bank and Government look bad as it, not that most of us didn't know that anyway. It's intriguing to get the warts and all views from Anglo though.

What I find a bit surprising is it appears that the Central Bank is going through the transcripts of these tapes only now to see if breaches of regulations occurred. It begs the question why only now is the Central Bank in the frame? Surely as the regulator for some time it should have had access to this info from the outset? The tapes were with 3 other parties but not the bank? One wonders if the Central Bank is still lagging behind as it was during the time all these cowboys were screwing the country.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0626/459020-central-bank-anglo/

maninasia

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

Pepe LeFrits

And there was I thinking David Drumm delivering a speech at the Anglo Christmas party culminating in him shouting "FÚCK THE MEDIA!" into the microphone might have been an isolated event.

Arseholes.

jmayo

BTW can anyone answer why david drumm has not been repatriated to these shores.
Surely they can initiate some sort of extradition proceedings relating to this matter ?
I can't see an American court protecting a banker.

Or even better still how about Kenny/Gilmore asking the US for one of those flights that never went through Shannon to make a drop off the next time they are passing through.
We could do a swap for sean garland.

Worztron

maninasia wrote: »

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

Looks like blatant fraud alright. :mad:

Cody Pomeray

View wrote: »

You should be capable of distinguishing between discussion on what we could have done but didn't

The discussion related to pension funds. This is a political debate By pointing out what went on, as opposed to what users think should have gone on, you are simply being a historical echo.

Let me remind you what you said, it's important to clarify this point, because this nonsense goes on far too much:

View wrote: »

You do realise that the bond holders probably include pension funds here in Ireland? Maybe even yours or your parents?

What you said there, as I am sure you agree, is complete bullsh1t,

I have raised 4 ways in which pension assets can be separated out from the bulk of a bank's marketable liabilities. This is a very straightforward point I am making, 3 of those being suitable for emergency arrangements, i.e. capable of being engaged during the course of an unexpected restructuring event.

You need to go back over the history of the Irish financial crisis and you need to re-check your dates and facts.

Scofflaw

maninasia wrote: »

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

I doubt the former is in any way illegal, but the latter might constitute fraudulent trading.

The reason the former is unlikely to be illegal is because as far as I can see, it's not illegal to state a sum of money that your business needs to a bank, even knowing that the sum is less than you need, but hoping to get the bank on board bit by bit. I think that would simply be seen as a valid negotiating tactic - if you think about it, it even turns up in The Hobbit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gringo180

Just a little over an hour to the protest outside the GPO better bring the rain jacket, lets hope we get a good turnout its time for the people to rise up against the corrupt!

McTigs

Scofflaw wrote: »

I doubt the former is in any way illegal, but the latter might constitute fraudulent trading.

The reason the former is unlikely to be illegal is because as far as I can see, it's not illegal to state a sum of money that your business needs to a bank, even knowing that the sum is less than you need, but hoping to get the bank on board bit by bit. I think that would simply be seen as a valid negotiating tactic - if you think about it, it even turns up in The Hobbit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not the same as tactical negotiations a business would have with a bank, this is deception. Lying to the cenral bank about your financial status in order to lure them into a sitaution where they are compelled to support you down the road way beyond what they were led to believe was the case earlier.

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case. My view is that it's still illegal though and could be proved.

Scofflaw

McTigs wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with that. It's not the same as tactical negotiations a business would have with a bank, this is deception. Lying to the cenral bank about your financial status in order to lure them into a sitaution where they are compelled to support you down the road way beyond what they were led to believe was the case earlier.

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case. My view is that it's still illegal though and could be proved.

I doubt it, much as it seems it ought to be - in this case, they told the CBI "we need this much right now, and we can provably cover that sum". Neary (in parody) does tell them "make sure whatever you get sorts you out", but if you think about that statement, it acknowledges that there is no contractual or legal requirement for that to be the case. The CBI is taking a risk giving them the money, and that risk is acknowledged as part of the deal by Neary. That it's taxpayers' money at stake doesn't change the parallel with any troubled business' negotiations with a bank.

If the documents they offered were true as far as they went, which seems to be the case -Anglo offered documents showing they could cover the €7bn - there will be no legal fraud here.

Where there is likely fraud is in the bank's lack of intent to repay the money, and their internal admission that the bank is in fact no longer a going concern.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Floppybits

What these tapes highlight for me is just how inept the State was at protecting the State from people such as those on the tapes or in other such institutions. We pay our politicians and our civil servants well and what we should be demanding from them is that they have robust rules and regulations in the place to stop this carry on and they failed to do that.

Even now 5 years into this crap I feel the politicians have stilled not learned the lessons and are still letting the banks and big business call the shots in the way the rules and regulations are being setup for each of the sectors. If this is the way they were carrying on in Anglo, I can only bet that AIB and BOI were just as bad and I would love to hear those tapes as well and see Boucher especially get his come uppance.

But for me the sickening thing is the politicians feigning outrage and shock when they are the very people that facilitated this sort of behaviour with the light touch policy and also their policy of appointing their inept friends or colleague into positions such as the financial regulator and other such positions. An absolute disgrace.

Cody Pomeray

McTigs wrote: »

This is illegal but they can worm their way out by saying the central bank and the regulator took them at their word without carrying out due dilligence and they didn't actually falsify and documents to support their case.

How?

There is a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud

Its versatility has led it to be called "the prosecutor's darling" in the UK: because even though the UK has standalone legislation on fraud, prosecutors still rely on this common law offence for everything from fraudulent trading to failure to disclose information to price fixing, when statutory provisions exist elsewhere. We don't have strong anti fraud legislation, but we do share this common law offence with the UK.

Prosecutors like this common law offence because its range is so vast, and because its penalties can be very harsh, and also becuase it's very simple to present toa jury, you can suggest one offence taking in everything, instead of, say, 10 statutory provisions pulled from here, there and everywhere.

I think there is some reason to believe that a prosecution will arise (in part) from these tapes. That will be despite our lacking statutory provisions in company law.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How?

There is a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud

Its versatility has led it to be called "the prosecutor's darling" in the UK: because even though the UK has standalone legislation on fraud, prosecutors still rely on this common law offence for everything from fraudulent trading to failure to disclose information to price fixing, when statutory provisions exist elsewhere. We don't have strong anti fraud legislation, but we do share this common law offence with the UK.

Prosecutors like this common law offence because its range is so vast, and because its penalties can be very harsh, and also becuase it's very simple to present toa jury, you can suggest one offence taking in everything, instead of, say, 10 statutory provisions pulled from here, there and everywhere.

I think there is some reason to believe that a prosecution will arise (in part) from these tapes. That will be despite our lacking statutory provisions in company law.

Or possibly not, because it seems we don't have that one:

December 2010

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Tighe

[2010] IESC 61

Supreme Court (Murray CJ, Denham, Hardiman JJ) 21 December 2010

Judgment delivered by Hardiman J

European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 – Correspondence – ‘Ticked box’ offences – UK Offence of Cheating the Public Revenue – Conspiracy

Facts

The surrender of the appellant was sought so that he could be prosecuted in the UK for four offences, being three counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and one count of cheating the public revenue contrary to common law. The issuing judicial authority marked “fraud” and “money laundering” in the boxes provided for categories of offence coming within Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision on the warrant, and therefore being offences in which no proof of double criminality was required (‘ticked box’ offences). The warrant also indicated that the offence of conspiracy was not covered by the marking of the boxes referred to, and therefore would require proof of double criminality.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

In the High Court ([2009] IEHC 33), Peart J held that correspondence must be established in regard to the offence of conspiracy. Under UK law conspiracy to commit an offence is provided for by s.1(1) of the Criminal Law Act, 1977. There is no such equivalent provision in this jurisdiction, but the existence of the common law offence of conspiracy here is sufficient to satisfy correspondence for conspiracy.

Held: (per Hardiman J):

1. The EAW Act of 2003 has introduced a novel system whereby a list of offences has been created where double criminality need not be found in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. Accordingly a significant amount of detail, including the nature of the offence, its classification under the law of the issuing state, the circumstances of the offence, and its penalties are required to be stated on the warrant. MJELR v. Desjatnikovs [2009] 1 IR 618 approved.

2. The offence of conspiracy to defraud the public revenue does not correspond to an offence in Ireland. The offence would be unlikely to meet the requirements of Irish law that a criminal offence be certain and specific in its definition. DPP v Cagney and Mcgrath [2008] 2 IR 3 considered, Attorney General v Hilton [2005] 2 IR 374 approved.

3. There is no general offence of conspiracy at common law, it is criminal only in the context of a specific agreement to commit a specific unlawful act.

4. It is uniquely for the issuing state to say whether and if so where in the list of actions in the Framework decision the particular offence is to be found. In the instant case, it was certified in the warrant that three of the four offences charged were within the list of criminal conduct in the framework decision, and later in the warrant, that they were not (as conspiracy was an element of the first three charges and later certified as not being within Article 2.2.) This was a serious internal conflict in the warrant. Correspondence would need to be established for the conspiracy charges, however, nothing in the warrant aimed to establish dual criminality. Correspondence on the particular charge could not have be established in any event. Attorney General v Hilton [2005] 2 IR 374 applied.

5. The fourth charge of Cheating the Public Revenue was a substantive offence which on the warrant claimed to come within the ambit of “fraud” in the list of criminal offences in article 2.2 of the Framework Decision. However the warrant failed to provide enough detail as to the circumstances in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It is also a charge which had previously been held not to correspond to an offence in this jurisdiction (see Hilton above). Accordingly surrender was also refused on this charge.

Significance of the Case

Practitioners in the EAW list will be interested to note that the very common “belt and braces” approach of issuing authorities to claim that an offence is within the Art 2.2 list of offences and also that it corresponds to an offence in this jurisdiction has been severely questioned by the Supreme Court. Where such an approach is taken, it appears that correspondence will need to be established in the warrant.

The summary of that is that we don't have a general offence of "conspiracy", and we don't have "Cheating the Public Revenue" either. The vital bits are highlighted above:

1. The offence of conspiracy to defraud the public revenue does not correspond to an offence in Ireland.

2. There is no general offence of conspiracy at common law, it is criminal only in the context of a specific agreement to commit a specific unlawful act.

The act of asking for the €7bn itself would need here to be a fraudulent act, and while it could be, in the UK, considered as "cheating the public revenue", that offence doesn't exist here. If there is no specific criminal act in the request for money by Anglo, then logically there cannot be a conspiracy to commit any such criminal act.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PlainP

Scofflaw wrote: »

Regrettably that's the case, I think. Coming back, though, to Sand's point about proving negatives, there's never going to be such a thing as conclusive proof people like Cowen weren't involved - you can't actually prove that, ever. All you can show is that you have an explanation that doesn't require his involvement - which I think we have - and no evidence of involvement, which I think we also have.

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.



Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Scofflaw

PlainP wrote: »

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

Well, of course he should have known that Anglo were talking to the Central Bank and Regulator. What's the relevance?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

Rightwing

PlainP wrote: »

This is taken from an interview with David Drumm in 2011

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html?page=9

DD: My connection would have always been the Central Bank and the regulator together.

NOD: But the department of finance, the minister would have known about this?

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.



Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/There-is-a-witchhunt--I-convince-myself-that-this-will-pass-134533003.html#ixzz2XPs7Qex5
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

I'm stunned at the public reaction to all of this. Everyone knew that €7bln wouldn't be next or near enough.

The only thing I'm surprised at is the odd bit of humour that's coming out.

PlainP

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, of course he should have known that Anglo were talking to the Central Bank and Regulator. What's the relevance?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

He is saying here that the Minister and Taoiseach did know what was going on, that the Central Bank and the regulator had told them the bank was in dire straights.

jmayo

maninasia wrote: »

Chopping away the jokes and getting to the core of the conversations, would these two actions not be cause for criminal investigation

1. Deliberately misleading central bank as to how much money would be required for bailout?

2. Admitting that the 7 billion bridging loan would never be paid back?

I know it may be simplistic, but could they be done for Fraudalent, Reckless Trading or failure to keep proper accounts under the Companies Acts ?
I think people need to think of creative ways of trapping these miscreants rather like the way al capone was done in the end.

Floppybits wrote: »

What these tapes highlight for me is just how inept the State was at protecting the State from people such as those on the tapes or in other such institutions. We pay our politicians and our civil servants well and what we should be demanding from them is that they have robust rules and regulations in the place to stop this carry on and they failed to do that.

This is Ireland where even when there are rules and regulations they are not enforced.

For example see how long the Central Bank/IFSRA ignored the lax policies adopted in INBS single handily run by the cretinous supremo michael "fingers" fingleton.
A KMPG report in 2000 highlighted the shoddy and lax practices regaridn lending and risk assesment.
Yet nothing was done and we the taxpauyer ended up loosing around 10 billion (recap and NAMA) when INBS went down the sh*tter.

AFAIK IFSRA cheif liam o'reilly ignored his duties (obligations and rules) when he sided with AIB when overcharging, rather than with his duty of care to the Irish consumer as laid out in the formulation of IFSRA.

Speaking of fingers has he ever repaid the 1 million bonus he received, when as according to latest court case, he should have been sumarily fired ?

It doesn't matter what rules and regulations you have if they and warnings are ignored.
The US, German and Austrian authorities all warned CB/IFSRA of various dodgy behaviour happening within the remit of CB/IFSRA yet they were ignored.

Lbeard

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm stunned at the public reaction to all of this. Everyone knew that €7bln wouldn't be next or near enough.

The only thing I'm surprised at is the odd bit of humour that's coming out.

No. The public at the time, believed the cash to be short term for the purpose of stabilizing the bank.

Remember it was the "credit crunch". What the public believed to be happening was the state temporally backing up the bank, and once "normal" credit conditions returned, the state could get its' money back.

Anyone else would just have a suspicion Anglo "assets" were all dog ****. Anglo weren't being straight with the Central Bank. Had they, the CB would have had to let Anglo go bang.

The result is, the Irish public took the hit to protect the European banking system. There's a very dubious morality to getting the innocent to pay for the scum, but with these tapes its' even more dubious. This is why Merkle has said straight off, the ESF won't pay retroactively for what Anglo did. Had the mechanism existed at the time, Anglo would had to go there. It would have been a very different situation.

One thing we've really learned from the tapes, is not only were assets of the bank dog ****, the people running the bank were scaldy bags of dog **** too.

eigrod

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm stunned at the public reaction to all of this. Everyone knew that €7bln wouldn't be next or near enough.

The only thing I'm surprised at is the odd bit of humour that's coming out.

I don't think people are stunned at the figures at all. We're well past being stunned by the vast sums of money the banks got swamped under.

What I find intriguing about these tapes is how these guys come across as having an extremely low intellect. They come across as being crude and quite frankly, a bit thick.

I would have expected conversations between the very highest level of management of a bank to be on a far higher plain and far more professional than what we've been listening to the last few days, irrespective of the level of crisis the bank was in. Bowe comes across as being massively out of his depth.

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

The summary of that is that we don't have a general offence of "conspiracy", and we don't have "Cheating the Public Revenue" either. The vital bits are highlighted above:

No we don't have a specific provision for conspiracy to defraud the revenue and we don't have a common law provision for general conspiracy.

Scofflaw, I don't generally see the point in engaging with your monothematic position, except in this instance where you erroneously suggest that I am mistaken. In fact, you are mistaken here - you are incorrectly reading that judgement as having struck down the relevant common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, by referring to the specific charges captured in the forms before the court.

You should address Corporate Crime (2012) by Prof. Shelley Horan for a detailed introduction to the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud in this jurisdiction, or refer to the CCABI's recent paper on corporate crime

http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/Technical%20Resources/Law%20and%20Regulation/CCABI%20Docs/Criminal%20Justice%20Act%202011.pdf

Dannyboy83

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm stunned at the public reaction to all of this. Everyone knew that €7bln wouldn't be next or near enough.

The only thing I'm surprised at is the odd bit of humour that's coming out.

The Irish reaction isn't very surprising imo; but I've had friends from France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and even Russia write to me to pass comment.
That has surprised me.

Our reputation is in tatters again.

If the Irish government aren't seen to do justice soon, we are fcuked.

Rightwing

eigrod wrote: »

I don't think people are stunned at the figures at all. We're well past being stunned by the vast sums of money the banks got swamped under.

What I find intriguing about these tapes is how these guys come across as having an extremely low intellect. They come across as being crude and quite frankly, a bit thick.

I would have expected conversations between the very highest level of management of a bank to be on a far higher plain and far more professional than what we've been listening to the last few days, irrespective of the level of crisis the bank was in. Bowe comes across as being massively out of his depth.

I've never really bought into the 'pay low wages and you get monkeys'. This is the proof, similarly over in AIB/BOI. Where are those tapes?

But the tapes are a bit of a banter between these guys, not much else. They knew the ship was going down at that stage.

Scofflaw

PlainP wrote: »

DD: Well based on what John Hurley said, the importance of what was going on was going right to the minister for finance and most likely the Taoiseach was fully aware of it at the time as well . Put it this way, I cannot imagine, there was so much fear amongst everybody about the consequences for the country, that is the Taoiseach didn’t know about it, he should have.

He is saying here that the Minister and Taoiseach did know what was going on, that the Central Bank and the regulator had told them the bank was in dire straights.

Er, yes - the Taoiseach would have been informed by the Regulator and/or CBI when the bank started talking to them. What has that to do with the claim that Cowen knew something the Regulator and CBI didn't?

still puzzled,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No we don't have a specific provision for conspiracy to defraud the revenue and we don't have a common law provision for general conspiracy.

Scofflaw, I don't generally see the point in engaging with your monothematic position, except in this instance where you erroneously suggest that I am mistaken. In fact, you are mistaken here - you are incorrectly reading that judgement as having struck down the relevant common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, by referring to the specific charges captured in the forms before the court.

You should address Corporate Crime (2012) by Prof. Shelley Horan for a detailed introduction to the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud in this jurisdiction, or refer to the CCABI's recent paper on corporate crime

http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/Technical%20Resources/Law%20and%20Regulation/CCABI%20Docs/Criminal%20Justice%20Act%202011.pdf

It's an, um, entertaining read, but I can't see the relevance. What it describes is "conspiracy" in the case where a relevant offence has been committed, and my point was that no relevant offence had been committed in the act of asking the Central Bank for less than Anglo executives knew the bank would need. I don't have a problem with the idea that if an offence has been committed, the taped conversations are prima facie evidence of conspiracy - but you cannot have a conspiracy where there is no criminal act, and while stating a lower requirement than they knew was needed looks like fraud, I don't see how it is. A higher requirement, sure, but asking for less than they needed, no.

Nothing in the document addresses that point, unless of course I'm missing it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

McTigs

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's an, um, entertaining read, but I can't see the relevance. What it describes is "conspiracy" in the case where a relevant offence has been committed, and my point was that no relevant offence had been committed in the act of asking the Central Bank for less than Anglo executives knew the bank would need. I don't have a problem with the idea that if an offence has been committed, the taped conversations are prima facie evidence of conspiracy - but you cannot have a conspiracy where there is no criminal act, and while stating a lower requirement than they knew was needed looks like fraud, I don't see how it is. A higher requirement, sure, but asking for less than they needed, no.

Nothing in the document addresses that point, unless of course I'm missing it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

There is a duty on parties to a contract to act in good faith, doesn't matter whether it's a central bank or a regular bank. To mislead another party to a contract is an offence. They misled on the amount needed, they misled on the reason (insolvency not liquidity) and they misled on the ability and intention to repay. These are all concrete offences, nothing to do with whether it's taxpayers money or not.

Scofflaw

McTigs wrote: »

There is a duty on parties to a contract to act in good faith, doesn't matter whether it's a central bank or a regular bank. To mislead another party to a contract is an offence. They misled on the amount needed, they misled on the reason (insolvency not liquidity) and they misled on the ability and intention to repay. These are all concrete offences, nothing to do with whether it's taxpayers money or not.

They're not criminal offences, though, but breaches of civil law. And, again, asking for less than they needed is not any kind of fraud that I can see.

In case time has clouded the waters here, let me repeat that there were two questions I was addressing, posed by maninasia. The first was whether asking for less than they needed in order to draw the CBI in was a criminal act, the second whether their lack of intent to repay was a criminal act.

The second, I would say, falls under 'fraudulent trading', but the former just doesn't fall under anything I can see. There is no requirement for Anglo to have asked for everything they needed from the Central Bank, or everything they thought they needed straight away. As far as I can see, it's one of those things that looks like it ought to be a crime, but isn't - it's just immoral, and bad faith. It might form the basis for a civil case for breach of contract, but what would we get out of that, exactly, and how culpable would the bank be given their contract was with their supposed regulator, who should have been in a position to see through their bluff had they been doing their job properly?

So I'd agree with you that there are probably concrete offences under "ability and intention to repay", but not on the "amount needed" and also probably not on "reason (insolvency or liquidity)". That's just my opinion, but I can't help but note that nobody in the public debate has been able to point to any legislation that covers those issues, which makes the claims of "conspiracy" misplaced. Sure, they're conspiring, but as long as what they're conspiring to do is not a crime, they're entitled to conspire all they like.

cordially,
Scofflaw