Anglo Trial - Read Mod Warning in First post

My name is URL

Holsten wrote: »

Jail should only be used for violent offenders who are extremely likely to re-offend.

Judge got it right.

So how should those found guilty of conspiracy, embezzlement, fraud, bribery and the like be punished?

Those are all crimes that can and do victimise more people than your run-of-the-mill scobe robbing from shops.

If someone stole items from you, or conned you out of money I doubt you'd say they don't deserve to be jailed.

darkpagandeath

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Ignorance of the law has always been a viable mitigating factor.
In this case it is generally accepted that both the legal advice they received and the advice the received from the regulator was that what they were doing was legal.

What legal advice the solicitor said he was not asked about the maple 10.

Holsten

My name is URL wrote: »

So how should those found guilty of conspiracy, embezzlement, fraud, bribery and the like be punished?

Those are all crimes that can and do victimise more people than your run-of-the-mill scobe robbing from shops.

If someone stole items from you, or conned you out of money I doubt you'd say they don't deserve to be jailed.

For these types of crimes alternative punishment should be used.

The way I look at it is, what actual good will come of these lads being in jail? Make some people feel better? Other than that it's just a waste of my tax money.

lightspeed

COYW wrote: »

He was found innocent in a court of law. He is a free man. Another notch on that post that makes me cringe. It is extremely difficult to get convictions when it comes to this type of activity.

But they were not found innocent were they? I thought they we found guilty and today was the sentencing.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/17/former-anglo-irish-executives-found-guilty

It is not the case that the judge ruled they were not guilty of the allegations they were accused and so they walk free.

They were found guilty and not given a custodial sentence and so walk free.

I always thought there was a difference between what happens when you are found guilty of a crime and when you are found not guilty.

Only difference that i see here is that it took slightly longer at slightly more cost to the taxpayer than already incurred for this trial than if they had been previously found not guilty.

Infini

Well its official it exists in ireland now

http://penguinssauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wookie.jpg

Seriously theyre part of a cabal that basically ruined this country and they get away with community service.

Broken justice system is broken.

My name is URL

Holsten wrote: »

For these types of crimes alternative punishment should be used.

The way I look at it is, what actual good will come of these lads being in jail? Make some people feel better? Other than that it's just a waste of my tax money.

Sending out a signal that white collar crimes will be dealt with using kid-gloves, will; in the long run cost you even more tax money.

lightspeed

Holsten wrote: »

For these types of crimes alternative punishment should be used.

The way I look at it is, what actual good will come of these lads being in jail? Make some people feel better? Other than that it's just a waste of my tax money.

The way i look at it disincentive is there for future bankers not to turn our banks into casinos in the future for their own gain?

They still get big bonuses and it is now seems established from today that the "who dares wins approach" is a profitable course for bankers to take.

Worst scenario, you walk away with big wads of cash, some bad publicity and the jobs a good one.

tallus

A light sentence like that sends the wrong signal if you ask me. I mean people are doing time for TV licence offences, and these pricks get community service, despite a guilty verdict.

y0ssar1an22

lightspeed wrote: »

But they were not found innocent were they? I thought they we found guilty and today was the sentencing.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/17/former-anglo-irish-executives-found-guilty

It is not the case that the judge ruled they were not guilty of the allegations they were accused and so they walk free.

They were found guilty and not given a custodial sentence and so walk free.

I always thought there was a difference between what happens when you are found guilty of a crime and when you are found not guilty.

Only difference that i see here is that it took slightly longer at slightly more cost to the taxpayer than already incurred for this trial than if they had been previously found not guilty.

Although they will not serve a jail sentence they were found guilty, so should they not have to pay all the costs?

Woodville56

Infini2 wrote: »

Well its official it exists in ireland now

http://penguinssauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Wookie.jpg

Seriously theyre part of a cabal that basically ruined this country and they get away with community service.

Broken justice system is broken.

Wonder what type of community service these lads will get ? Given their fair wind so far, bet it will be something cushy, nothing too taxing of their genteel dispositions. Could think a few suitable projects :pac:

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

has that guy who wants a revolution started another thread yet?

Frank Lee Midere

Holsten wrote: »

Well if they carried on they would be repeat offenders thus they would warrant jail.

So someone who defrauded a pensioner of her life savings should not see jail but a mugging with threats, but no actual violence or little, should see jail? Even if the mugger takes a fiver?

Frank Lee Midere

Woodville56 wrote: »

Wonder what type of community service these lads will get ? Given their fair wind so far, bet it will be something cushy, nothing too taxing of their genteel dispositions. Could think a few suitable projects :pac:

Provably they'll get jobs in credit unions. A bit below their station but we all have crosses to bear.

steddyeddy

Am I reading this right. They're guilty, ie they're criminals, their gambling cost the state millions and numerous people financial ruin and they will face no jail time.

Tell me this isn't the same "judge" who sentenced the garlic man?

Holsten

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

So someone who defrauded a pensioner of her life savings should not see jail but a mugging with threats, but no actual violence or little, should see jail? Even if the mugger takes a fiver?

Mugging someone on the street is inherently violent.

Red Alert

Carte blanche to a similar thing again. Fines or even community service do not really impact on the lifestyles of these guys, a spell in the 'Joy would.

shane7218

and yet a man that smuggled in garlic got sentenced to 6 years and these guys that brought the country to its knees get community service. I have no faith left in this country.

steddyeddy

This country is run by nepotism fueled political dynasties who have no regard for the common good of the country.

steddyeddy

On my mobile here so limited facts. Where they convicted of breaking the law? Ie they're criminals?

Menas

Can the state appeal the lenient sentence?

My name is URL

steddyeddy wrote: »

On my mobile here so limited facts. Where they convicted of breaking the law? Ie they're criminals?

They were found guilty on ten counts of providing illegal loans under Section 60 of the 1963 Companies Act.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Frank Lee Midere

Holsten wrote: »

Mugging someone on the street is inherently violent.

It has to be because the mugger doesn't have acess to the old ladies bank account. And robbing a bank if you are poor is violent but robbing it if you are rich and can acess people's accounts does not entail violence but could lead to massive loses. You are actually supporting mass fraud.

Holsten

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It has to be because the mugger doesn't have acess to the old ladies bank account. And robbing a bank if you are poor is violent but robbing it if you are rich and can acess people's accounts does not entail violence but could lead to massive loses. You are actually supporting mass fraud.

So by not wanting these men jailed I'm supporting mass fraud?

Yeah, sure.

They should be 100% punished, I'm not against that, I just see nothing to be gained if these two were to spend a year or two in the training unit in Mount Joy.

steddyeddy

My name is URL wrote: »

They were found guilty on ten counts of providing illegal loans under Section 60 of the 1963 Companies Act.

Thank you man. That fact allows me to say that this country allows major criminals to get away scot free.

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

So by not wanting these men jailed I'm supporting mass fraud?

Yeah, sure.

They should be 100% punished, I'm not against that, I just see nothing to be gained if these two were to spend a year or two in the training unit in Mount Joy.

It would act as a deterrent to other criminals. That's one of the purposes of jail. Do you disagree with jails on principle?

marienbad

Holsten wrote: »

So by not wanting these men jailed I'm supporting mass fraud?

Yeah, sure.

They should be 100% punished, I'm not against that, I just see nothing to be gained if these two were to spend a year or two in the training unit in Mount Joy.

Does that not apply to most convictions though ?

shane7218

Holsten wrote: »

So by not wanting these men jailed I'm supporting mass fraud?

Yeah, sure.

They should be 100% punished, I'm not against that, I just see nothing to be gained if these two were to spend a year or two in the training unit in Mount Joy.

What was to be gained by jailing the garlic man ? Why are we using double standards these peoples crimes are far more serious then that mans

Holsten

steddyeddy wrote: »

It would act as a deterrent to other criminals. That's one of the purposes of jail. Do you disagree with jails on principle?

I 100% disagree that it would act as a deterrent.

Harsh sentencing does absolutely nothing for deterrence, criminals never believe they'll get caught thus any possible punishment doesn't really come into it.

washman3

Holsten wrote: »

Jail should only be used for violent offenders who are extremely likely to re-offend.

Judge got it right.

The 'violant offenders' that kicked a young man to death outside Annabels nightclub, in the main walked free, but then again they have much in common with these two charletens, ie kids of rich parents, private school boys,pillars of society.!!
In short, there are no rich people in Mountjoy, its just for the little people.!!
Todays decision is the final kick in the teeth to the ordinary decent people of this country and confirms without doubt that we do indeed live in a banana republic.:mad:

washman3

shane7218 wrote: »

What was to be gained by jailing the garlic man ? Why are we using double standards these peoples crimes are far more serious then that mans

Garlic man is not part of the 'Golden Circle'. Simple as...;)

My name is URL

Holsten wrote: »

I 100% disagree that it would act as a deterrent.

Harsh sentencing does absolutely nothing for deterrence, criminals never believe they'll get caught thus any possible punishment doesn't really come into it.

That's far more true for blue-collar and violent crimes than it is for white-collar crimes.

A junkie won't be put off from robbing someone with the threat of jail.. a company director will be put off from committing crime though. The difference is that one has everything to lose if caught, and the other has nothing to lose.

These guys were found guilty and they lose nothing.. they keep their freedom and their money.. where's the deterrent in that?

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

I 100% disagree that it would act as a deterrent.

Harsh sentencing does absolutely nothing for deterrence, criminals never believe they'll get caught thus any possible punishment doesn't really come into it.

So don't jail people?

Jumboman

Atlesat these 2 scumbags didnt subject us to a victory speech like fitzpatrick did.

sillyoulfool

Jumboman wrote: »

Atlesat these 2 scumbags didnt subject us to a victory speech like fitzpatrick did.

That's probably because Fitzpatrick was victorious , he was found not guilty, he left court an innocent man.

sillyoulfool

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What legal advice the solicitor said he was not asked about the maple 10.

That's not what he said.
And evidence was given in court by other witnesses that in fact he told them it was legal.
Furthermore he only turned up in court after being warned he would be charged if he didn't.

lightspeed

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Although they will not serve a jail sentence they were found guilty, so should they not have to pay all the costs?

Im sure they are paying for their own legal costs but are the two of them going to pay for all the legal and admin costs for incurred by the state for all of this show?

Given the length of time this has been ongoing, i reckon that bill would be pretty high.

Jumboman

lightspeed wrote: »

Im sure they are paying for their own legal costs but are the two of them going to pay for all the legal and admin costs for incurred by the state for all of this show?

Given the length of time this has been ongoing, i reckon that bill would be pretty high.

Are they f*ck .

darkpagandeath

sillyoulfool wrote: »

That's not what he said.
And evidence was given in court by other witnesses that in fact he told them it was legal.
Furthermore he only turned up in court after being warned he would be charged if he didn't.

Yes and did he not say he was not asked about the maple 10... He was asked about the other loan but not the maple 10.

martingriff

shane7218 wrote: »

and yet a man that smuggled in garlic got sentenced to 6 years and these guys that brought the country to its knees get community service. I have no faith left in this country.

And quiet rightly was appealed even the revenue and I think the DPP was shocked

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

I 100% disagree that it would act as a deterrent.

Harsh sentencing does absolutely nothing for deterrence, criminals never believe they'll get caught thus any possible punishment doesn't really come into it.

Again why jail people.

take everything

lightspeed wrote: »

The way i look at it disincentive is there for future bankers not to turn our banks into casinos in the future for their own gain?

They still get big bonuses and it is now seems established from today that the "who dares wins approach" is a profitable course for bankers to take.

Worst scenario, you walk away with big wads of cash, some bad publicity and the jobs a good one.

Yep.
I think it was Matt Cooper today who made the point that even Drumm will be feeling emboldened to come back to the old sod after this facade.

Remarkably stupid little country.

Holsten

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again why jail people.

I never said don't jail people, just these two.

Jail just be used to remove violent people from society.

take everything

Again I would give anything to see these morons' CVs.
They'll be on boards of this, that and the other before we know it.

mikom

Look at what parties are in government currently.
Look at what parties were last in government.

Remember this ruling when casting your ballots in the upcoming elections.
Vote the same.......... for more of the same.........

Spring Onion

Banana Republic, septic isle. Disgusted with this decision.
Not only is there no accountability but this guarantees it will happen again.
Disgraceful. I want to fcuking riot now.

darkpagandeath

Holsten wrote: »

I never said don't jail people, just these two.

Jail just be used to remove violent people from society.

So cybercrime, identity theft and alike should not be punished ? Anything to do with your personal details and credit rating is way worse than being mugged in the street. In some cases it can take years for everything to be corrected.

marienbad

Holsten wrote: »

I never said don't jail people, just these two.

Jail just be used to remove violent people from society.

So how do we deter white collar crime then ?

steddyeddy

Holsten wrote: »

I never said don't jail people, just these two.

Jail just be used to remove violent people from society.

Great so only violent crimes, no burglars, no people in contempt of court, no pickpockets or people who hack into people's bank account and take out money?

Are you seriously telling me all those people shouldn't be in jail.

Spring Onion

The only people that prosper all of the time are the lawyers and accountants.
Now they are untouchable if accepted within the elite.