Anglo Bankers Jailed

Amirani

Fleawuss wrote: »

If people like this are not jailed then others will continue their practices of ducking and diving allegedly at the behest of the higher ups. This jailing is a blow to the culture of enabling white collar crime. Only when that pressure is visibly there will it become more difficult for the higher ups to carry out dubious actions.

Jailing people for white collar crime (or most crimes really) doesn't really have any effect on whether people will continue to commit crime. If it was the case then you wouldn't have Bernie Madoff and the like, but you do, and there'd be countless others who'd do the exact same given the chance.

Does the death penalty, the ultimate punishment, stop people committing crimes that receive the death penalty? There's no evidence to suggest it does.

foggy_lad

20Cent wrote: »

Seanie is applying to adjourn his trial because of this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/sean-fitzpatrick-seeks-to-adjourn-trial-following-anglo-sentencing-1.2303614#.Vbug-1vR8mc.twitter

That Judge Martin Nolan, isn't he the one who lets rapists and paedophiles walk free from the court with fines and community service in schools etc?

Fleawuss

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Jailing people for white collar crime (or most crimes really) doesn't really have any effect on whether people will continue to commit crime. If it was the case then you wouldn't have Bernie Madoff and the like, but you do, and there'd be countless others who'd do the exact same given the chance.

Does the death penalty, the ultimate punishment, stop people committing crimes that receive the death penalty? There's no evidence to suggest it does.

This is about putting pressure on white collar workers to reject actions allegedly initiated by higher ups so that institutions remain honest. I think it will have a deterrent effect.

There are bigger questions about deterrence for violent crime.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

foggy_lad wrote: »

That Judge Martin Nolan, isn't he the one who lets rapists and paedophiles walk free from the court with fines and community service in schools etc?

Can you be more specific?

Who knows - maybe he'll take a harder line against the more elite criminals.

kazamo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just fuppin unreal!

Surely they could have arranged for Sean F's trial to happen before the current three amigos.

Smells. But what do I know

I think they did try and arrange that and a jury was sworn in but the various legal arguments from both sides dragged it out before any evidence could be heard and the judge after 27 days of legal argument dismissed the jury.

Not sure but when Seanie Fitz is dealt, is there anything else stopping the Sean Quinn case against Anglo\the State.
So we may be happy with a few bankers going to prison but not so happy if a hefty judgement is made against the taxpayer.
Maybe this being dragged out isn't such a bad thing after all ?

Barely There

Custodial sentences are ridiculous in cases like this.
Negligent deterrent effect and they end up costing society money - about €250k for these three muppets.

Far better to make them give something positive back to society.

blackcard

I am not a criminal, I pay my taxes, even the water charges. If I found money, I would give it back to the owner. But, in the wrong circumstances, I could imagine being an unwilling participant in something like this to assist someone who was my boss. Which is why I feel sympathy for those that have been jailed

Fleawuss

blackcard wrote: »

I am not a criminal, I pay my taxes, even the water charges. If I found money, I would give it back to the owner. But, in the wrong circumstances, I could imagine being an unwilling participant in something like this to assist someone who was my boss. Which is why I feel sympathy for those that have been jailed

I think the thrust of this sentence and the whistleblowers legislation is to enable people to call a halt to a culture of dubious practice and to resist pressures to dishonest and illegal activity allegedly instigated by higher ups.

Spanish Eyes

kazamo wrote: »

I think they did try and arrange that and a jury was sworn in but the various legal arguments from both sides dragged it out before any evidence could be heard and the judge after 27 days of legal argument dismissed the jury.

Not sure but when Seanie Fitz is dealt, is there anything else stopping the Sean Quinn case against Anglo\the State.
So we may be happy with a few bankers going to prison but not so happy if a hefty judgement is made against the taxpayer.
Maybe this being dragged out isn't such a bad thing after all ?

You seem to know a bit more about the logistics here!

But anyway, what case is SQ proposing to take against the State? Is it because the State closed Anglo down or what?

I won't say anymore about Quinn. I like my freedom from lawsuits.

jobeenfitz

Barely There wrote: »

Custodial sentences are ridiculous in cases like this.
Negligent deterrent effect and they end up costing society money - about €250k for these three muppets.

Far better to make them give something positive back to society.

No they are not Rediculous. If they had co-operated and saved us the cost of a trial then maybe community service would be appropriate. They broke the law and probably would had proffited if the bank hadn't gone tits up.

There are lots more innocent people who suffered partially because of these dodgy bankers who are more deserving of our sympathy.

20Cent

Barely There wrote: »

Custodial sentences are ridiculous in cases like this.
Negligent deterrent effect and they end up costing society money - about €250k for these three muppets.

Far better to make them give something positive back to society.

Jail is only for the poor.

vienne86

Fleawuss wrote: »

I think the thrust of this sentence and the whistleblowers legislation is to enable people to call a halt to a culture of dubious practice and to resist pressures to dishonest and illegal activity allegedly instigated by higher ups.

Absolutely. But this operation happened in different times. If the chairman of the organisation for which you work tells you to do something, it's very hard to say no, because you think it is wrong. You have the whistleblower legislation on your side now, but I think this all happened long before it was even planned. So I feel sorry for the three, and anyway would have far preferred to see them do lots of community service etc. rather than go to jail.

Amirani

20Cent wrote: »

Jail is only for the poor.

Nah, only for those too dangerous to allow live among the rest of society.

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Agreed. Fines and community service makes more sense for this sort of thing. These people deprived the tax payer of money, now they're going to deprive them of more. And for what? What does anyone achieve other than feeling like they got a bit of revenge.

Massive fraud, on a large enough scale, can cause greater damage to society, the economy, and to politics (through the political power and damage it can bring), than almost any other violent crime out there - white collar crimes, fraud primary among them, should really be treated more harshly than most other crimes.

People who participate in leading the entire countries economy into a crash, should end up spending at least a decade (or decades, depending on the severity of their role) in prison - because the rest of us end up spending a decade or decades digging ourselves out of the mess they made for us.

kazamo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

You seem to know a bit more about the logistics here!

But anyway, what case is SQ proposing to take against the State? Is it because the State closed Anglo down or what?

I won't say anymore about Quinn. I like my freedom from lawsuits.

I don't like lawsuits either

I believe Quinn's case relates to the taking over of his various business' when he couldn't repay the debts incurred. His stance is that they weren't done legally and that loan documentation signed may not have the authorisation to seize those business assets which would make it non recourse lending.

Given what we know of business practices of Anglo, maybe he has a case, maybe not.

jobeenfitz

vienne86 wrote: »

Absolutely. But this operation happened in different times. If the chairman of the organisation for which you work tells you to do something, it's very hard to say no, because you think it is wrong. You have the whistleblower legislation on your side now, but I think this all happened long before it was even planned. So I feel sorry for the three, and anyway would have far preferred to see them do lots of community service etc. rather than go to jail.

What about telling the truth at the trial? Should they be allowed cover for their old boss under oath and get off Scott free?

Amirani

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Massive fraud, on a large enough scale, can cause greater damage to society, the economy, and to politics (through the political power and damage it can bring), than almost any violent crime out there - white collar crimes, fraud primary among them, should be treated more harshly than most other crimes.

Treat them more harshly if you think it's appropriate (I don't think it justifies worse treatment than rape/murder, but we can differ).

However, the fact remains that it isn't a significant enough deterrent in order to eliminate or significantly reduce massive fraud. The only way to do that is through tighter regulation that will identify it early.

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

Wahay finally some bankers jailed.

Former chief operations office Tiernan O’Mahoney has been sentenced to three years in jail, former company secretary Bernard Daly has been sentenced to two years and former assistant manager Aoife Maguire has been sentenced to 18 months.

http://www.thejournal.ie/anglo-sentencing-2246708-Jul2015/

Good to see, if only Seanie was joining them

While it's great to see justice being delivered, is also fair to assume that the monkeys will take the fall for the organ grinders who will remain unscathed. The most despicable obnoxious prick is still across the Atlantic

KomradeBishop

Fleawuss wrote: »

If people like this are not jailed then others will continue their practices of ducking and diving allegedly at the behest of the higher ups. This jailing is a blow to the culture of enabling white collar crime. Only when that pressure is visibly there will it become more difficult for the higher ups to carry out dubious actions.

The higher ups don't give a shít so long as they get those below them to take the blame and end up in prison, while protecting the higher ups - it's the higher ups, who set in place the perverse incentives that lead to fraud in the first place, and get to reap much of the rewards from it due to the way bank performance is rewarded, who deserve to spend a good portion of the rest of their lives in prison; them more than anyone else.

Son Of A Vidic

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Only violent criminals should be placed in custody.

I'd also throw in the incompetent senior banking scum, that gambled recklessly knowing we'd cover their bill.

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Jailing people for white collar crime (or most crimes really) doesn't really have any effect on whether people will continue to commit crime. If it was the case then you wouldn't have Bernie Madoff and the like, but you do, and there'd be countless others who'd do the exact same given the chance.

Does the death penalty, the ultimate punishment, stop people committing crimes that receive the death penalty? There's no evidence to suggest it does.

You've got that utterly backwards. It's creating a culture where you do not do anything significant enough to stop white collar crime, that creates and enables fraudsters like that.

By your logic, we may as well stop jailing all burglars, and then watch as the robbery rate plummets...don't think so.

Call me Al

vienne86 wrote: »

Absolutely. But this operation happened in different times. If the chairman of the organisation for which you work tells you to do something, it's very hard to say no, because you think it is wrong. You have the whistleblower legislation on your side now, but I think this all happened long before it was even planned. So I feel sorry for the three, and anyway would have far preferred to see them do lots of community service etc. rather than go to jail.

Interesting point, however one staff member (at the time the Treasury Ops Mgr Zita Vance) was asked to exclude account names from a list by one of these two men and, after considering the request, she declined.
Admittedly she was moved off this revenue project afterwards but she didn't feel obliged to go along with the fraud. She rightly had no misplaced sense of loyalty to anyone. She also didn't lose her job.
How foolish these three people must all feel tonight as they bed down under lock and key, but I don't feel sorry for them. They knew exactly what they were doing even if they didn't get any direct benefit (other than a possible favourable nod from dear Seanie come bonus time for doing his dirty work, and boy were Anglo famed for their bonuses).

Amirani

KomradeBishop wrote: »

By your logic, we may as well stop jailing all burglars, and then watch as the robbery rate plummets...don't think so.

Some bizarre deductions you've made there.

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Treat them more harshly if you think it's appropriate (I don't think it justifies worse treatment than rape/murder, but we can differ).

However, the fact remains that it isn't a significant enough deterrent in order to eliminate or significantly reduce massive fraud. The only way to do that is through tighter regulation that will identify it early.

Where is the evidence to show that prison is not a deterrence for white collar crime? It's a deterrence for nearly all other crimes, so I don't see what would be different here.

I agree that you need preventative measures for fraud, first and foremost, but what you're arguing for is effectively legalization of white collar crime - which is absurd - you need a deterrent, and you need to treat white collar criminals, in the same manner as you treat all other criminals.

Junkyard Tom

Diego Simeone wrote: »

And for what?

To act as a deterrent.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Nah, only for those too dangerous to allow live among the rest of society.

Like some dopey young fella who sells weed to fund his own pizza and Xbox habit? Get a grip.

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Some bizarre deductions you've made there.

It's based on your logic for not imprisoning white collar criminals - that logic is precisely bizarre.

Amirani

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Where is the evidence to show that prison is not a deterrence for white collar crime? It's a deterrence for nearly all other crimes, so I don't see what would be different here.

It's not an effective deterrence for nearly all other crime. Particularly not when it comes to sentence severity. Look at drug traffickers in Asia who know that the death penalty is a certainty if they're caught. Look at Bernie Madoff who knew that life imprisonment was a certainty if he was caught. Look at murderers in Texas who know that the death penalty is a certainty if they're caught. Look at the extensive research that suggests that sentence severity has little impact on crime figures.

I agree that you need preventative measures for fraud, first and foremost, but what you're arguing for is effectively legalization of white collar crime - which is absurd.

Yet again, your deduction here is nonsensical.

LeBash

VisibleGorilla wrote:

Complete waste of a jail space.

Only violent criminals should be placed in custody.

That's a pretty horrible line. These people have created huge problems for almost everyone in the State. The problem is they won't be going to the same facility that violent criminals go to imo.

hatrickpatrick

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Agreed. Fines and community service makes more sense for this sort of thing. These people deprived the tax payer of money, now they're going to deprive them of more. And for what? What does anyone achieve other than feeling like they got a bit of revenge.

Once again people forget the main point of punishing crime: scare the bejaysus out of any young, aspiring corporate chancers before they're high up enough on the ladder to be considering similar shenanigans.

One of the reasons gangland crime is so rampant in Ireland is that those involved are secure in the knowledge that if they get caught, nothing at all will happen to them once they get up in front of a judge.

conorh91

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just fuppin unreal!

Surely they could have arranged for Sean F's trial to happen before the current three amigos.

Smells. But what do I know

Think of this as the pilot episode. A dry run.

The sentencing here, if upheld in appeal to the appellate court can be taken into consideration by the sentencing judge should a finding of guilt arise in any subsequent, related trial.

KomradeBishop

Diego Simeone wrote: »

It's not an effective deterrence for nearly all other crime. Particularly not when it comes to sentence severity. Look at drug traffickers in Asia who know that the death penalty is a certainty if they're caught. Look at Bernie Madoff who knew that life imprisonment was a certainty if he was caught. Look at murderers in Texas who know that the death penalty is a certainty if they're caught. Look at the extensive research that suggests that sentence severity has little impact on crime figures.



Yet again, your deduction here is nonsensical.

None of your examples show deterrence failing as an overall policy, because you don't have a comparison case showing how many more of those crimes would be committed, without the deterrence - the deterrence is about reducing the overall crime rate, not completely eliminating crime (an impossible goal).

Your argument is about uprooting the entire criminal justice system, and moving it away from deterrence as well - otherwise, you would be arguing for keeping the current system as it applies to all other crimes, and creating a special exception for white collar criminals.

Either way, to avoid hypocrisy you need to be consistent by arguing for a complete uprooting of the justice system - and that is inherently outside the topic of discussion, because the justice system will not be changing in such a significant way, anytime soon.


So, we live in todays world, without an uprooting of the justice system, and white collar criminals should not be granted special exceptions that other classes of criminals are not offered - that would be re-inforcing us having a 'two tier' justice system, where the poor are treated more harshly, than the more wealthy criminals (as white collar criminals predominantly come from deciles of above-average wealth).

Madoff is also a good example, of how fraudsters do cause harm to other people, as he has ruined many peoples lives with his fraudulent Ponzi scheme - it's fraudsters who can, especially on a mass scale, do far more harm to people in society, than any violent criminals - making them collectively, at least as much a danger to society as the criminals you want to keep locked up.

kazamo

LeBash wrote: »

That's a pretty horrible line. These people have created huge problems for almost everyone in the State. The problem is they won't be going to the same facility that violent criminals go to imo.

They weren't convicted of anything that caused these problems however.
The law they fell foul of was defrauding the Revenue Commissioners regarding the identity of accounts.
There isn't enough wrongdoing in that to bring a country to it's knees.

jobeenfitz

Sneaky bastards covering for another sneaky bastard. They got jail. Boo hoo! Well done judge.

Ellie2008

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Sneaky bastards covering for another sneaky bastard. They got jail. Boo hoo! Well done judge.

What I don't understand was why especially Ms.Maguire didn't plead guilty but Seanie told me to do it...she mightn't have gotten jail if she'd played ball!

Zaph

conorh91 wrote: »

You certainly cannot compare this bunch of minions in Anglo to Bernie Madoff. They weren't even officers of the bank.

Tiernan O’Mahoney was Chief Operating Officer and effectively Sean Fitzpatrick's number 2, and Bernard Daly was the company secretary. They were senior officers of the bank and while their actions may have been out of some sort of misguided loyalty towards Seanie, within Anglo they were far from being minions and knew that what they were doing was wrong. Even Aoife Maguire, who was much more junior, was an assistant manager and would therefore have had enough experience to know that what she was doing was wrong, and most probably illegal.

conorh91

Zaph wrote: »

Tiernan O’Mahoney was Chief Operating Officer

Apologies I misread an article on a news website without looking into their roles. I nevertheless mention the officership almost in passing, however, because nothing important turns on that question. The manager of the branch of the Bank of Ireland in Moville, on the tip of Co. Donegal, is an officer of BoI, for example. It's an important role, not necessarily determinative of liability when the bank goes tits up.

Minions is probably too strong a word, but my point is that they weren't very big fish. I believe in their guilt, and from that, I believe they should be punished. I am just wary of scapegoating.

Ellie2008

conorh91 wrote: »

Apologies I misread an article on a news website without looking into their roles. I nevertheless mention the officership almost in passing, however, because nothing important turns on that question. The manager of the branch of the Bank of Ireland in Moville, on the tip of Co. Donegal, is an officer of BoI, for example. It's an important role, not necessarily determinative of liability when the bank goes tits up.

Minions is probably too strong a word, but my point is that they weren't very big fish. I believe in their guilt, and from that, I believe they should be punished. I am just wary of scapegoating.

She was a minions though, an assistant manager is not a senior role in a bank.

Spanish Eyes

conorh91 wrote: »

Think of this as the pilot episode. A dry run.

The sentencing here, if upheld in appeal to the Central Criminal Court, can be taken into consideration by the sentencing judge should a finding of guilt arise in any subsequent, related trial.

OK, I am in agreement that at last sentencing for white collar crime now exists.

But I do worry that S Fitz may use the Three Amigos as prejudicing his case.

I don't know, but seems to me that may happen. Hence the timing of the case today.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One of the reasons gangland crime is so rampant in Ireland is that those involved are secure in the knowledge that if they get caught, nothing at all will happen to them once they get up in front of a judge.

A lot of the gangland crime is because of Irish travellers feuding between one another.

Spanish Eyes

Ellie2008 wrote: »

She was a minions though, an assistant manager is not a senior role in a bank.

No one knows what happened WRT to the lady involved. But at the same time there was no defence evidence produced, which I thought kind of strange, but there we are.

We can all say that she was co erced into doing it and so on. But no evidence was shown that this was the case.

Ellie2008

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

No one knows what happened WRT to the lady involved. But at the same time there was no defence evidence produced, which I thought kind of strange, but there we are.

We can all say that she was co erced into doing it and so on. But no evidence was shown that this was the case.

Why would she do it otherwise?! She hardly did it off her own bat! Thought to herself while walking into work one morning oh I'll delete a few accounts today. I feel really sorry for her, I was in a not too dissimilar situation myself, it sucks.

conorh91

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

OK, I am in agreement that at last sentencing for white collar crime now exists.

But I do worry that S Fitz may use the Three Amigos as prejudicing his case.

The Circuit Court will rule on that on Thursday, but the vast majority of case law is against it.

And that's not even taking account of the fact that FitzPatrick has been acquitted by a jury on separate charges, only last year, despite adverse pre-trial publicity. This further entrenches the courts' already well-established view that jurors are well capable of ignoring newspaper comment and online rants.

Still, even for an admittedly exaggerated degree of prudence, it's best to avoid discussing FitzPatrick.

jiltloop

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A lot of the gangland crime is because of Irish travellers feuding between one another.

This comment is strange, irrelevant and incorrect in equal measure. I don't even know where to begin.

Ellie2008

jiltloop wrote: »

This comment is strange, irrelevant and incorrect in equal measure. I don't even know where to begin.

He s been watching too much Love Hate.

Means Of Escape

The_Valeyard wrote: »

These are just small fish. Minnows.

We need to jail the big fish.

Jail Seanie Fitz.

Jail Fingleton.

Jail Drumm.

Agreed. Scapegoats came to mind.

Fleawuss

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The higher ups don't give a shít so long as they get those below them to take the blame and end up in prison, while protecting the higher ups - it's the higher ups, who set in place the perverse incentives that lead to fraud in the first place, and get to reap much of the rewards from it due to the way bank performance is rewarded, who deserve to spend a good portion of the rest of their lives in prison; them more than anyone else.

The higher ups cannot get away with things if those below them can be pressured. Some "minnow" will say why should I take the rap for so and so...

Call me Al

Ellie2008 wrote: »

She was a minions though, an assistant manager is not a senior role in a bank.

That doesn't make her crime any less of a crime though.

Ellie2008

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Agreed. Scapegoats came to mind.

Where has Finngelton gone?! He s gone for quiet the last few years!

Ellie2008

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Agreed. Scapegoats came to mind.

Where has Finngelton gone?! He s gone for quiet the last few years!

hatrickpatrick

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A lot of the gangland crime is because of Irish travellers feuding between one another.

And...?
If jailing them would somehow breach their human rights, set up a mobile prison van and drive it around the country with them inside it.