Sean Fitzpatrick to get off Scott Free

SeamusFX

BoatMad wrote: »

And of course the guarantee should never have been extended from the pillar banks to Anglo in the first place.

The state could have easily financed the banking crisis if the public finances were in order , that was my point

Yes, my point exactly!! If Seanie Fitz and the boys in Anglo weren't playing hide the baloney, then Cowan would have had a better idea of the extent of Anglo's losses and if he had half a brain, he probably never would have extended the guarantee to Anglo!

BoatMad

SeamusFX wrote: »

Yes, I know that. An individual is not responsible for company losses, but if any of those losses are related to something illegal the individual did, then the individual should be responsible. Defend Seanie Fitz all you want and we may not know all of what went on and he may not be legally responsible for reckless lending, but as a minimum, he is guilty of temporarily transferring loans from Anglo to Irish Life and Permanent and back to hide losses with the intent to deceive.

you cannot make this statement " but if any of those losses are related to something illegal the individual did, then the individual should be responsible" , which I agree with

and then in the breath arbitrarily decide Sean Fitz is guilty of a crime

e is guilty of temporarily transferring loans from Anglo to Irish Life and Permanent and back to hide losses with the intent to deceive.

this has not been deemed at this point He or Anglo is guilty of breaking any criminal law


for example the Central Bank commented

"he Central Bank of Ireland revealed that they became aware of problems surrounding loans from Anglo Irish Bank to FitzPatrick, following an inspection earlier in 2008. The regulator said, "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the Central Bank of Ireland was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate"

Considering the stakes, this alone should warrant prison time. As far as the reckless lending and deceitful practices, this was also the fault of the financial regulators not doing their jobs properly (for whatever reason) and the fault of the government for not having adequate regulations in place.

Little of the loans were on the face of it reckless, its easy to say that in hindsight after a construction collapse. Many of the projects have subsequently been re-funded

So did the boys in Anglo commit illegal acts? Absolutely! Was Seanie Fitz responsible? We may never know the complete truth, but he was involved and they clearly knew what they were doing was wrong, but they still did it. Seanie was being paid the big bucks, so he should take some of the responsibility. Joe Public wouldn't get away with breaking the law by claiming ignorance, so why should Seanie?

thankfully ,we have a justice system to decide criminality and the extent of it and its punishment, unlike a public lynching party , The " stakes " have no impact on the issue.

PS: Sean, just like you is entitled to a presumption of innocence , therefore he is innocent

oe Public wouldn't get away with breaking the law by claiming ignorance, so why should Seanie?

any trip to the District court will show you that " Joe Public " tries this argument every day of the week , sometimes he's successful too

Finally, the prosecution did have enough evidence against Seanie for a conviction, but he got off because the prosecution committed questionable practices including shredding documents, although we don't know what was in those documents

You realise the hypocrisy of your statement

. Why did the prosecution do such a thing and then admit it? Was this stupidity or some form of collusion? Why weren't charges brought against O'Connell for his illegal shredding activities? Is O'Connell still undergoing psychiatric care and was this a symptom of his illegal activities or maybe just a cover? If the case should have been thrown out, why didn't this happen over 2 years ago when the shredding was revealed, rather than run up more costs on the tax payer? There are too many questions and not enough answers, maybe Seanie wasn't the evil genius he is sometimes depicted to be, but he certainly isn't 100% innocent!

There are under oath like everyone else, and when questioned by the judge and based on the nature and content of the evidence , he threw it out of court

Largely because it was not impartial , the role of the Office of Corp Enforcement is to gather evidence and present it to the DPP, it has NO role as a prosecutor. IN this case , in my view because of ( unwarranted ) public opinion, the OCE overstepped the mark and became mixed up with the lynch mob

( and this has parallels with the Ian Bailey situation )

SeamusFX

BoatMad wrote: »

you cannot make this statement " but if any of those losses are related to something illegal the individual did, then the individual should be responsible" , which I agree with

and then in the breath arbitrarily decide Sean Fitz is guilty of a crime


this has not been deemed at this point He or Anglo is guilty of breaking any criminal law


for example the Central Bank commented

"he Central Bank of Ireland revealed that they became aware of problems surrounding loans from Anglo Irish Bank to FitzPatrick, following an inspection earlier in 2008. The regulator said, "While it does not appear that anything illegal took place in relation to these loans, the Central Bank of Ireland was of the view that the practices surrounding these loans were not appropriate"






Little of the loans were on the face of it reckless, its easy to say that in hindsight after a construction collapse. Many of the projects have subsequently been re-funded



thankfully ,we have a justice system to decide criminality and the extent of it and its punishment, unlike a public lynching party , The " stakes " have no impact on the issue.

PS: Sean, just like you is entitled to a presumption of innocence , therefore he is innocent



any trip to the District court will show you that " Joe Public " tries this argument every day of the week , sometimes he's successful too


You realise the hypocrisy of your statement



There are under oath like everyone else, and when questioned by the judge and based on the nature and content of the evidence , he threw it out of court

Largely because it was not impartial , the role of the Office of Corp Enforcement is to gather evidence and present it to the DPP, it has NO role as a prosecutor. IN this case , in my view because of ( unwarranted ) public opinion, the OCE overstepped the mark and became mixed up with the lynch mob

( and this has parallels with the Ian Bailey situation )

You have a lot more contradicting statements than I do. Yes, by hiding things from the auditor, they did break the law!! No matter what type of job you are in, if you intentionally hide things, it's deception and that is illegal!

BoatMad

You have a lot more contradicting statements than I do. Yes, by hiding things from the auditor, they did break the law!! No matter what type of job you are in, if you intentionally hide things, it's deception and that is illegal!

Sorry, we have a constitutional process to determine if corporations and people ( separate legal entities) are " guilty "

You, or me , do not have that right , thats called a lynch mob .

equally until so proven , Corporations and people have a presumption of innocence . i.e. they ARE innocent until a court determines other wise

perhaps youd do well to remind yourself of the constitution and legal framework of the state

BoatMad

if you intentionally hide things, it's deception and that is illegal!

if I hide your sandwiches , its not against the law. Corporate law infact allows many things to be " hidden " quite legally

you really need to move away from absolutes

10000maniacs

BoatMad wrote: »

any trip to the District court will show you that " Joe Public " tries this argument every day of the week , sometimes he's successful

and this has parallels with the Ian Bailey situation

Joe public rarely gets anywhere with these types of defenses.
Ah sure I never realised I needed a license. Or didn't realise salmon was out of season.
But old bean Fitzy, we can't have him thrown to the wolves. He's one of us.
Thats certainly the perception of this weeks verdict. Too good to go down.




.

BoatMad

10000maniacs wrote: »

Joe public rarely gets anywhere with these types of defences.

Intent is a major ingredient of any crime, Joe public or other wise, the establishment of intent, typically starts with Joe Public claiming he didnt know anything

Ah sure I never realised I needed a license. Or didn't realise salmon was out of season.

as I said , take you self to a district court and have a listen , the defense of not knowing is advanced quite regularly , in the case of " intent" is a key issue

But old bean Fitzy, we can't have him thrown to the wolves. He's one of us.

I think the state came unhinged because its was actually seeking to persecute Sean F. and the judge saw through it .

The state was more then happy to throw Seannie to the wolves

Thats certainly the perception of this weeks verdict.

no the majority perception is the OCE did a crap job, only the lunatic AAA is trying to push the conspiracy nonsense

10000maniacs

BoatMad wrote: »

Intent is a major ingredient of any crime, Joe public or other wise, the establishment of intent, typically starts with Joe Public claiming he didnt know anything





as I said , take you self to a district court and have a listen , the defense of not knowing is advanced quite regularly , in the case of " intent" is a key issue



I think the state came unhinged because its was actually seeking to persecute Sean F. and the judge saw through it .

The state was more then happy to throw Seannie to the wolves


no the majority perception is the OCE did a crap job, only the lunatic AAA is trying to push the conspiracy nonsense

Yeah like I said old bean Fitzy, he's one of us.

BoatMad

10000maniacs wrote: »

Yeah like I said old bean Fitzy, he's one of us.

not sure who " us" is , you mean one of you

but simplistic conspiracy arguments like yours , sur thats what twitter was designed for

10000maniacs

BoatMad wrote: »

not sure who " us" is , you mean one of you

but simplistic conspiracy arguments like yours , sur thats what twitter was designed for

Deffo not me .....old boy.

Cyrus

SeamusFX wrote: »

Is that you Seanie?

Is that you Paul Murphy or Claire Daley or any of the other aaa spoofers ?

BoatMad

10000maniacs wrote: »

Deffo not me .....old boy.

Week given the attempt by the state to throw Seannie under a bus, an attempt that rather badly backfired. Im not sure who " one of us: , Seannie belongs to

thebaz

BoatMad wrote: »

Incorrect and not sustained by the timeline.

Lehman failure caused shock waves through the interbank lending process, in effect causing it to seize up , especially for construction related collateral

In ireland, Anglo was uniquely exposed ( nationwide was a minnow ) and as a merchant bank , largely raised lending funds, via the interbank process rather then through central bank processes

This exposed Anglo to a direct and massive fault , and its much vaunted " backed by personal guarantee " proved to be useless

All of this would have been sustainable by the Irish State

The removal of the state from access to the sovereign bond market was the catalyst for the Troika ( because at that time the EU had no other rescue mechanism ) Th troika did not fund ( and could not fund ) the recapitalisation of the banks

The state was removed from the bond market because the underlying financial state of the public finances had deteriorated dramatically because of its reliance on construction taxes. This was a direct result of FF policies

The banks exacerbated the issue in ireland, They didnt cause it



The EuroZone was quite right in ensuring that no Eurozone banks would be allowed to fail. Arguably given the doubt over the survival of the Euro at that time, that was the right thing to do.

However the Spanish handled it much better then the Irish, but then they had the benefit of watching us. We suffered because we were the first ( in the Eurozone )

lets just agree to disagree - I believe the catalyst that caused the Troika to come was Anglo collapse - FF were afraid of letting Anglo fall , cause they guessed there would be a domino effect collapse - and no one knows what would actually have happened if they had - AIB could have gone - a run on all Irish banks could have happened - You are right we were a guinea pig , and I believe Brussells and Berlin did us little favour at the time. Hindsight is great , but I remember 2 or 3 years post Bailout , most top economists were saying Ireland was ****ed and that we would have nothing like economic conditions that we have today - Life is a game , no one knows for sure what will happen - you make choices that you hope are the right ones, but sometimes or often you make the wrong call.

A Battered Mars Bar

Har har me matey, t'is scot free you get off then I see har har. Bless Kenny har har wouldn't drop a penny you see....you be in jail if it wasn't for the dail har har me matey

BoatMad

A Battered Mars Bar wrote: »

Har har me matey, t'is scot free you get off then I see har har. Bless Kenny har har wouldn't drop a penny you see....you be in jail if it wasn't for the dail har har me matey

Sean Fitz as a character in the Pirates of the Caribbean , well I never

BoatMad

thebaz wrote: »

lets just agree to disagree -

lets not , boards would collapse

I believe the catalyst that caused the Troika to come was Anglo collapse - FF were afraid of letting Anglo fall ,

Trokia came in well after Anglo failed


remember even in 2010 the following statement was made

"In April 2010, following a marked increase in Irish 2-year bond yields, Ireland's NTMA state debt agency said that it had "no major refinancing obligations" in 2010. Its requirement for €20 billion in 2010 was matched by a €23 billion cash balance, and it remarked: "We're very comfortably circumstanced"."

the bank guarantee was in place nearly two years by this stage

cause they guessed there would be a domino effect collapse - and no one knows what would actually have happened if they had - AIB could have gone - a run on all Irish banks could have happened - You are right we were a guinea pig , and I believe Brussells and Berlin did us little favour at the time. Hindsight is great , but I remember 2 or 3 years post Bailout

The greater issue is that the ECB would not continence any Eurozone bank failure. ( and they made that clear to the then FF Gov)

, most top economists were saying Ireland was ****ed and that we would have nothing like economic conditions that we have today - Life is a game , no one knows for sure what will happen - you make choices that you hope are the right ones, but sometimes or often you make the wrong call.

The underlying conditions in Ireland remained good, with the tax based widened , Ireland was actually back in the soverign market very rapidly

The stupidity of FF was the underlying reason, not the banks, They merely exacerbated the issue

And yes we were the "experiment" as the EU had no real structures to rescue banks , which it does have now , but had we been outside the Eurozone, it would have been near terminal

as a matter of fact , the Troika only lent money to the state to shore up the public finances, we had to use our own resources to re-capitalise the banks ( primarily the NPRF and the promissary note , which was outside the Troika )

SeamusFX

BoatMad wrote: »

if I hide your sandwiches , its not against the law. Corporate law infact allows many things to be " hidden " quite legally

you really need to move away from absolutes

I'm sorry, intentionally hiding losses or cooking the books, although maybe only temporarily is still cooking the books and it is Fraud and last time I checked, Fraud was illegal and punishable by law. I'm sorry, hiding hundreds of millions is not the same as hiding a sambo!

SeamusFX

Cyrus wrote: »

Is that you Paul Murphy or Claire Daley or any of the other aaa spoofers ?

Definitely not, I don't even like aaa, but you on the other hand, how could anyone defend the undefendable?

thebaz

BoatMad wrote: »

lets not , boards would collapse





Trokia came in well after Anglo failed


remember even in 2010 the following statement was made

"In April 2010, following a marked increase in Irish 2-year bond yields, Ireland's NTMA state debt agency said that it had "no major refinancing obligations" in 2010. Its requirement for €20 billion in 2010 was matched by a €23 billion cash balance, and it remarked: "We're very comfortably circumstanced"."

the bank guarantee was in place nearly two years by this stage

I'm well aware - but I THINK that the ramifications of FF guess / gamble on that long monday night in Sept '08 came home to roost - and it wasn't good , the gamble they took that night was the wrong one - rumour or fact is that it was Biffo that pushed this decision to guarantee Anglo - and he was close to Anglo/Seanie -

In fact the weekend the Troika arrived , Biffo was saying all was rosy , and we (Ireland) did not require any external help i.e. IMF money - so 7 years later I don't know what to believe - I do know the Irish people now have forgiven FF , and will probably form next govt unless Doctor V spins FG back in ... strange world is Ireland

Yourself isit

Cyrus wrote: »

Is that you Paul Murphy or Claire Daley or any of the other aaa spoofers ?

Interesting that you think the only people opposed to sean Fitz would be aaa.

My USC tax makes me hostile to him.

BoatMad

I'm well aware - but I THINK that the ramifications of FF guess / gamble on that long monday night in Sept '08 came home to roost - and it wasn't good , the gamble they took that night was the wrong one - rumour or fact is that it was Biffo that pushed this decision to guarantee Anglo - and he was close to Anglo/Seanie -

The bank guarantee was extended to all banks, because the ECB ( as has become clear ) made it clear to Brian Lenehan , that no Eurozone bank could fail and at that time Anglo had huge deposits from German banks in the form of bonds, A domino effect was entirely probable , people forget that Anglo was a very large bank by European standards

Hence in my opinion it had nothing to do with " Buffos" and Seanie. Anglo was rescued because the state was told to do it.

( anglo itself was actually surprised at the nature and extent of the guarantee)

Had the state addressed the underlying issues in 2007+ i.e. rising PS costs ( FF had added 20,000 OS since 2000) and reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes, leading to a dramatic narrowing of its tax base, it would have not been excluded from the soverign markets

It was this single issue that brought in the Troika, The banks ( AIB and BOI) were largely recapitalised from the NPRF and liquidation of anglo was financed by the Promissory note , i.e. ECB money

The Troika had no mandate to fix irish banks and they didnt . They were mandated to fix the states finance hole and provide temporary liquidity

As to how the Irish people can vote for FF , totally is beyond me, its like the abused going back to live with the abuser

BoatMad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Interesting that you think the only people opposed to sean Fitz would be aaa.

My USC tax makes me hostile to him.

your USC tax largely went to fund the gap in the states tax take over public expenditure

The banks were financed by capital from the NPRF ( BOI and AIB ) and a promissory note from the ECB ( inessnece free money , printed up for the purposes)

Kicking the banks is of course far preferable to standing back and asking yourself , how the state balances all the demands for " free stuff " while trying too keep taxation reasonable ( and FF fails at this every time ) water charges being a classic reason why the USC will be here forever

thebaz

BoatMad wrote: »

The bank guarantee was extended to all banks, because the ECB ( as has become clear ) made it clear to Brian Lenehan , that no Eurozone bank could fail and at that time Anglo had huge deposits from German banks in the form of bonds, A domino effect was entirely probable , people forget that Anglo was a very large bank by European standards

Hence in my opinion it had nothing to do with " Buffos" and Seanie. Anglo was rescued because the state was told to do it.

( anglo itself was actually surprised at the nature and extent of the guarantee)

Had the state addressed the underlying issues in 2007+ i.e. rising PS costs ( FF had added 20,000 OS since 2000) and reduced taxes on the middle and lower classes, leading to a dramatic narrowing of its tax base, it would have not been excluded from the soverign markets

It was this single issue that brought in the Troika, The banks ( AIB and BOI) were largely recapitalised from the NPRF and liquidation of anglo was financed by the Promissory note , i.e. ECB money

The Troika had no mandate to fix irish banks and they didnt . They were mandated to fix the states finance hole and provide temporary liquidity

As to how the Irish people can vote for FF , totally is beyond me

Those issues are always spouted by conservative economists - balancing books - as I said earlier , most leading economists were saying in 2012 Ireland would be doomed for generations , no one predicted the economy of today - even 2 years ago many said we were doomed - in 2011 I said to someone that I felt Irish ecomoy was improving , he nearly took my head off - I was right .
So basically I believe if Anglo had not got into ****e , the Troika would not have come .
On that last bit we're in agreement - 7 years is a short time for a country to forgive such total mismanagement.

Yourself isit

BoatMad wrote: »

your USC tax largely went to fund the gap in the states tax take over public expenditure

The banks were financed by capital from the NPRF ( BOI and AIB ) and a promissory note from the ECB ( inessnece free money , printed up for the purposes)

Kicking the banks is of course far preferable to standing back and asking yourself , how the state balances all the demands for " free stuff " while trying too keep taxation reasonable ( and FF fails at this every time ) water charges being a classic reason why the USC will be here forever

So the promissory note didn't have to be repaid? Maybe we should print this free money for everything , not just banks.

I'm paying for the banks. I'm paying for the depression caused by the banks. The public finances and debt to GDP were fine prior to the bank collapse. We can hardly run societies on the basis that 40% of GDP is smoke and mirrors.

BoatMad

Yourself isit wrote: »

So the promissory note didn't have to be repaid? Maybe we should print this free money for everything , not just banks.

I'm paying for the banks. I'm paying for the depression caused by the banks. The public finances and debt to GDP were fine prior to the bank collapse. We can hardly run societies on the basis that 40% of GDP is smoke and mirrors.

Sorry , you are regurgitating populist claptrap , largely spewed by the left as its suits their agenda

The banks , had the state been in robust financial health ( as it was in 2000-2002) could have largely been handled by the resources of the state

The fact was the downturn ( i.e. the " Austerity ) was largely nothing to do with the banks, This was caused by the need to reign in public spending and raise taxation , ( hence your USC)

The promissory note never has to be repaid, it can be refinanced forever, the state is not under any obligation to not reborrow the capital

in essence it becomes an interest bill , and largely gets " inflated away " over decades


as for " free money " , well yes thats largely how a fiat currency works. The problem for ireland is the ECB , and not Ireland, decides how much " free money " is printed and it wasnt prepared to print some more for us at the time ( it did relent to do the promissory note

On any real inspection of the data and timelines ( or even a read of the Wiki ) you will see that the Austerity and downturn was largely, outside of the construction industry , a function of the states previous public spending policy and lack taxation strategy

all we had to do was cut spending and broaden the tax base and hey presto its 2002 again ......!!!!!!! ( primarily because fundamentality unlike greece, we have a functioning private sector industrial sector that kept powering ahead ) and we are a wealthy country that had a cash flow problem, not an fundemental problem

The banks were a side show, that became a crisis because it happened at the same time as the state screwed up its finances

The public finances and debt to GDP were fine prior to the bank collapse

no they were not, Ireland had turned a significant surplus into a significant debt by 2007

"The economy and government finances began to show signs of impending recession by the end of 2007 when tax revenues fell short of the 2007 annual budget forecast by €2.3 billion (5%), with stamp duties and income tax both falling short by €0.8 billion (19% and 5%) resulting in the 2007 general government budget surplus of €2.3 billion (1.2% of GDP) being wiped out."

the banks effect was not felt till 2010

Hasschu

There seems to be a tendency to blame the Gov't as in it spends too much on social programs and did not collect enough taxes to balance the budget. Therefore they say the Gov't did not have the resources to bail out the banks. The Govt went into this with debt to GDP ratio of 27-28% better than Germany, Switzerland, Canada to name 3 well governed countries. The banks were overwhelmingly responsible or to be more precise the Gov't was responsible by deciding to bail out the banks by borrowing the needed funds and mortgaging the future of two generations of Irish people. The Irish Gov't has to bear some responsibility for the banking crisis in that it has a regulatory duty to see that the banks are being managed in accordance with recognised accounting principles. That responsibility is discharged by the Minister of Finance through the Central Bank of Ireland. In Ireland it would appear that Bank Regulation consisted of having occasional lunches with the executives of the banks. Sure after a few drinks the world looks rosier and by the end of the meal everything was hunky dory. When a brave woman economist in the MoF informed Ahern and Cowen that the property market was going tits up he informed her and the whole country that people with such opinions were insane and should jump off a bridge. So the Gov't failed to regulate the banks. The banks themselves were negligent. The auditors  and consultants retained by the banks were incompetent. But then to make matters worse when Jean Claude Juncker issued the ultimatum to the Irish Gov't "Assume responsibility for all bank debt or we will cut off funds and shut down your banks." our bright boys or what passes for Taoiseach and Minister of Finance in Ireland replied "Yes Mr Juncker Sir.". 
Some people might be comforting themselves that our debt to GDP has improved. Indeed what has improved is the flow of financial statements through Accounting and Legal offices in Ireland. This is a result of zero to 1% corporate tax deals for MNCs also known as the tax race to the bottom. Malta is now coming on strong in that field which means 0% to .01% will be the new bottom, it did not take long. The true GDP of Ireland while it can be determined by the MoF is never disclosed the feel good figure which includes flows of funds that do not touch Ireland but move from Tax Havens to Montana, Delaware, New York, London Frankfurt, Paris Geneva. Perhaps you could ask your TD when a true GDP report could be expected. When you see reports of GDP increasing by 40%+ y. o. y. look around you and ask yourself do you see any tangible evidence of that.
Continue to vote for tweedle dum and tweedle dee especially the most crooked of them who get voted back in election after election. Countries get the governments they vote for, Martians do not install gov'ts the voters do.
I must make a disclosure that at the age of fourteen I was delivering brown paper envelopes of unmarked cash to pillars of the community sitting as TD's. I left Ireland and got post secondary education in London. I  then worked for a few MNCs followed by the Gov'ts of England, USA and Canada where I am now. I vist relatives in Ireland most years, the latest was last April. I admit I have not the slightest shred of respect for Irish Gov'ts since the age of fourteen.

Persephone kindness

BoatMad wrote: »

in essence it becomes an interest bill , and largely gets " inflated away " over decades

You are deluded.

Persephone kindness

Quite frankly anyone of the mainstream parties who give out about social benefit fraud...which of course is a crime ...need to seriously look at the way the banks and certain individuals defrauded the state ...or they are living on cloud cuckoo land.

Persephone kindness

Hasschu wrote: »

There seems to be a tendency to blame the Gov't as in it spends too much on social programs and did not collect enough taxes to balance the budget. Therefore they say the Gov't did not have the resources to bail out the banks. The Govt went into this with debt to GDP ratio of 27-28% better than Germany, Switzerland, Canada to name 3 well governed countries. The banks were overwhelmingly responsible or to be more precise the Gov't was responsible by deciding to bail out the banks by borrowing the needed funds and mortgaging the future of two generations of Irish people. The Irish Gov't has to bear some responsibility for the banking crisis in that it has a regulatory duty to see that the banks are being managed in accordance with recognised accounting principles. That responsibility is discharged by the Minister of Finance through the Central Bank of Ireland. In Ireland it would appear that Bank Regulation consisted of having occasional lunches with the executives of the banks. Sure after a few drinks the world looks rosier and by the end of the meal everything was hunky dory. When a brave woman economist in the MoF informed Ahern and Cowen that the property market was going tits up he informed her and the whole country that people with such opinions were insane and should jump off a bridge. So the Gov't failed to regulate the banks. The banks themselves were negligent. The auditors and consultants retained by the banks were incompetent. But then to make matters worse when Jean Claude Juncker issued the ultimatum to the Irish Gov't "Assume responsibility for all bank debt or we will cut off funds and shut down your banks." our bright boys or what passes for Taoiseach and Minister of Finance in Ireland replied "Yes Mr Juncker Sir.".
Some people might be comforting themselves that our debt to GDP has improved. Indeed what has improved is the flow of financial statements through Accounting and Legal offices in Ireland. This is a result of zero to 1% corporate tax deals for MNCs also known as the tax race to the bottom. Malta is now coming on strong in that field which means 0% to .01% will be the new bottom, it did not take long. The true GDP of Ireland while it can be determined by the MoF is never disclosed the feel good figure which includes flows of funds that do not touch Ireland but move from Tax Havens to Montana, Delaware, New York, London Frankfurt, Paris Geneva. Perhaps you could ask your TD when a true GDP report could be expected. When you see reports of GDP increasing by 40%+ y. o. y. look around you and ask yourself do you see any tangible evidence of that.
Continue to vote for tweedle dum and tweedle dee especially the most crooked of them who get voted back in election after election. Countries get the governments they vote for, Martians do not install gov'ts the voters do.
I must make a disclosure that at the age of fourteen I was delivering brown paper envelopes of unmarked cash to pillars of the community sitting as TD's. I left Ireland and got post secondary education in London. I then worked for a few MNCs followed by the Gov'ts of England, USA and Canada where I am now. I vist relatives in Ireland most years, the latest was last April. I admit I have not the slightest shred of respect for Irish Gov'ts since the age of fourteen.

Same here I couldn't vote as I was not old enough when FF were in govt. I don't think we are going to be able to get convictions not in this country......but this has to be a lesson we learn from.

Persephone kindness

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/odonnell-kids-didnt-know-dad-5295719

When you look at this case ..the O'Donnell family. They owe like 70 million to the banks. And are trying every trick in the book to get out of it. It's nuts!

Wanderer78

Persephone kindness wrote:

When you look at this case ..the O'Donnell family. They owe like 70 million to the banks. And are trying every trick in the book to get out of it. It's nuts!

Basically, we 're fooked! Sadly we've learnt little or nothing from the crash, leading me to believe, we 're racing towards the next crash, which I think will be significantly worse than the previous one. I now think we may have to experience several more serious crashes before we truly except that there's something fundamentally wrong with our banking system and our economic systems for that matter

Free-2-Flow

Sometimes we forget.

Rich people don't go to Jail.

Jail is only for Middle and lower classes.

In all honesty, did you ever see him going to Jail? I've said it as soon as the trail started that he wouldn't spend 1 day behind bars.

Even the Judge probably had a Loan off him at some stage.

Ronin247

I won't pretend to have the financial knowledge of some of the posters here, but an angle that isn't being mentioned is that if Saint Seanie was found guilty of cooking the books, then would it be that the other Seanie (cavan) would have a cast iron case that Anglo defrauded him, and hence Anglo ( the state) would be on the hook for €3 billion to him?.

Maybe it was cheaper to allow Saint Seanie go free.

Persephone kindness

You really couldn't make it up really.

jmayo

Cyrus wrote: »

i never lauded sean quinn, i just wanted to make sure that your ire extended to him and normally one is lauded and the other derided.

I admire Michael O'Leary, Dermot Desmond, Denis O'Brien, Denis Brosnan, Paul Coulson, Tony Ryan and Michael Smurfit

I will never admire dermot desmond as he was one of haughey's buddies funding him.
Funny how haughey was the guy that backed the IFSC the very animal that made dermot very rich. :rolleyes:
Oh and i do remember him making a lot of money off the sale of a Greencore irish Sugar plant as well.
Another loss for the taxpayer.

Likewise with denis "sue yer ar**" o'brien.
His award of the second mobvile phone license was a license to print money.
Remind me again what the tribunals reckoned ?

Cyrus wrote: »

I admire anyone that started with nothing and generated billions even if it ends up in bankruptcy at the end,

Even if they screw over employees, shareholders and ultimately the taxpayer and citizens.

Cyrus wrote: »

who hid loans from Anglo? do you even know what you are talking about?

Ehhh he hid the loans, well supposedly from the auditors, which meant they were off the books that the shareholders and investors are meant to rely on.
Anyone that knows anything about audits would tell you good ones don't just look at the day of the audit or the day before but over a period of time to see anything.
Of course Anglo's much esteemed auditors couldn't find anything. :mad:
A bit like Anderson Consulting ehhh,

Cyrus wrote: »

I'll reiterate it again

He didn't hide the loans from Anglo they granted the loans to him ! They weren't in the account that doesn't mean the bank weren't aware of them

Also for anyone to say that this led to the downfall of the bank is just barmy

You are being disengenious, economical with the actual truth and using semantics to try make out he did nothing about hiding loans.

HE DID HIDE THE LOANS.
It was from auditors and thus from the shareholders, investors, company registration office, etc.
Other directors were unaware until 2008 he had huge loans with the bank.

Loans taken out by Mr FitzPatrick (68), his wife and family members increased from about ?10 million in 2002 to ?103 million in 2007. Mr FitzPatrick, the bank's former chairman, is accused of failing to disclose the loans to auditors.

The prosecution alleges that the amount of the loans was ?artificially reduced? for a period of two weeks around the bank's financial end of year statement by short term loans from other sources, including Irish Nationwide Building Society.

Mr FitzPatrick of Whitshed Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow has pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to 27 offences under the 1990 Companies Act. These include 22 charges of making a misleading, false or deceptive statement to auditors and five charges of furnishing false information in the years 2002 to 2007.

Director loans have always been a part of company law, although the Companies Act of 2014 put in tighter restrictions on director loans.

meeeeh wrote: »

As far as I remember the loans were paid off by Irish Nationwide (I think) a day or so before end of accounting year so they didn't show up in bank accounts as outstanding. When the new accounting period started loans were back on the books. It was completely wrong but I don't think there was an intention of stealing the money.

It was not about stealing money it was misleading accounts that are available publicly about the company.
It was breeches of company law.

Look at "Disclosure of transactions involving directors and others" Sections 41 to 47 of the 1990 Companies Act.

Actually there is another thing these guys should be done on and that is using company funds to keep the company's share price up.

The bank lent money to 10 special borrowers all to buy shares in the bank.
AFAIK that has always been a breech of company law and is also interference in the stock market.

Then there is a the borrow a deposit scheme involving Irish Life PTSB.

BoatMad wrote: »

I always maintained to anyone that listened that Sean F would never be successfully prosecuted because it's not a crime to run a business badly. ( and it can't be )

Directors have always been legally obliged under company law to disclose any and all loans from the company.
He actively hid them and misled auditors, CRO,

Look at "Disclosure of transactions involving directors and others" Sections 41 to 47 of the 1990 Companies Act.

BoatMad wrote: »

The failure of Anglo was because it was overly exposed to a sector that collapsed not because Sean was engaging in wrongdoing in any material
Way.

The prosecution was a result of the " public outcry " a largely ignorant and utterly misinformed outcry , as very few people understand company law much less banking law , in fact most people don't understand how banks work at all

So hence the result of the office of corporate enforcemebt being forced to bring a triaLunder public pressure that should never have been brought before the courts in the first place

I know enough about company law, even the stuff under companies act 1990 and not the much more defined 2014 act, that one shouldn't be hiding director loans from the company.

I think a fair few posters on here show how little has changed in Ireland when the likes of an arrogant duplicitous chancer like fitzpatrick is still being defended and even admired.

Seems it is business as usual for some.

BTW are you in the same yatch club

Cyrus

jmayo wrote: »

Ehhh he hid the loans, well supposedly from the auditors, which meant they were off the books that the shareholders and investors are meant to rely on.
Anyone that knows anything about audits would tell you good ones don't just look at the day of the audit or the day before but over a period of time to see anything.
Of course Anglo's much esteemed auditors couldn't find anything. :mad:
A bit like Anderson Consulting ehhh,



You are being disengenious, economical with the actual truth and using semantics to try make out he did nothing about hiding loans.

HE DID HIDE THE LOANS.
It was from auditors and thus from the shareholders, investors, company registration office, etc.
Other directors were unaware until 2008 he had huge loans with the bank.

you said he hid the loans from anglo, he didnt, he was granted loans by anglo. They werent disclosed to the auditors but i never argued that point.

again you are losing sight of the fact that 87m in the context of the anglo balance sheet was most likely immaterial, and auditors work to a materiality thereshold. i know more about audits than you do, im almost certain of that. And who are you defining as the good auditors while we are at it?

10000maniacs

Cyrus wrote: »

you said he hid the loans from anglo, he didnt, he was granted loans by anglo. They werent disclosed to the auditors but i never argued that point.

again you are losing sight of the fact that 87m in the context of the anglo balance sheet was most likely immaterial, and auditors work to a materiality thereshold. i know more about audits than you do, im almost certain of that. And who are you defining as the good auditors while we are at it?

Putting "again" before every sentence does not make your arguments any more credible.

Cyrus

10000maniacs wrote: »

Putting "again" before every sentence does not make your arguments any more credible.

Posting nonsense every time you post doesn't make your posts any less nonsensical either

I use again because I hope that by constantly repeating some of it might seep through

Richardsons Muff

Cyrus wrote: »

And who are you defining as the good auditors while we are at it?

the ones who aren't in the same scratcher as those in Leinster house, basically whoever wasn't in the same circle jerk or rugby scrum that you, yer aul lad, cousin, uncle or whoever else landed you the gig in one of 'the big foive loike'.

Cyrus

Richardsons Muff wrote: »

the ones who aren't in the same scratcher as those in Leinster house, basically whoever wasn't in the same circle jerk or rugby scrum that you, yer aul lad, cousin, uncle or whoever else landed you the gig in one of 'the big foive loike'.

Ok so you haven't clue

And big 5 ? Leave it out there's only 4

jmayo

Cyrus wrote: »

you said he hid the loans from anglo, he didnt, he was granted loans by anglo. They werent disclosed to the auditors but i never argued that point.

His loans were FROM Anglo, the company/bank he had been CEO of and laterally Chairman.

I never said he hid the loans from Anglo itself.
It would be fooking impossible to do and you know it.
You are playing semantics.

What he did was hide them from auditors, although that is a debatable point as the loans only disappeared off the books a couple of weeks before the audit only to reappear a couple of weeks afterwards.
If someone had done a trawl of the books something could have popped up.

And when he hid them from the auditors they never appeared to CRO, investors, shareholders and even some other directors.

So stop the bullshyte that he tried that he didn't hide the loans.

Cyrus wrote: »

again you are losing sight of the fact that 87m in the context of the anglo balance sheet was most likely immaterial, and auditors work to a materiality thereshold.

It doesn't matter they were only small in the grand scheme of things, it was technically illegal to hide director loans from authorities.
And it has never been found not guilty of the charges BTW.
The trial collapsed and the judge said he would not get a fair trial.

Now remind me again of what other shysters and little leeching fookers got off on that little gem ?

Also you laud him for his business ability when it was fooking abysmal.
What type of business man/banker hands out millions of basically unsecured loans without doing proper due diligence.

Cyrus wrote: »

i know more about audits than you do, im almost certain of that.

That would explain your ethical stance on fitzpatrick alright. :rolleyes:

Cyrus wrote: »

And who are you defining as the good auditors while we are at it?

BTW I would not trust any of the big 4 to give a true report of anything.

Remember the demise of Anderson.
Yeah the ones that couldn't spot Enron's massive fraud.

The problem with the big 4 is that one arm is probably auditing the books wile another one is cooking them or chasing more business from the organisation being audited.
There is absolutely no independence.

And Enron wasn't the first and won't be the last.
Remember Parmalat and their dodgy accounting.
Two audit firms Deloitte and Grant Thornton had to settle investor lawsuits in the US for their part in the Parmalat collapse.

Also remind me again which one of the big 4 was involved in the PPARS debacle and the wastage of hundreds of millions of taxpayers money ?

And the biggest laugh is that chartered accountants regulatory board found that the audits of the Irish banks were ok and cleared the external audit firms of any substantial failings in the audits carried out of the banks here on the eve of the financial crash in 2008.

It looked at the standards of the audits conducted by KPMG of AIB; EY?s audit of Anglo; PwC?s audit of Bank of Ireland; EY?s audit of the EBS; KPMG?s audit of IL & P; and the audit of Irish Nationwide also conducted by KPMG.

Remind me again how many of those banks went bust and how many no longer exist or are still in state ownership.

EY had two major failing banks.
KPMG were the winner with three.

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

...
And it has never been found not guilty of the charges BTW.
The trial collapsed and the judge said he would not get a fair trial.
...

he was found not guilty. It was a judge directed verdict of not guilty but a not guilty verdict nonetheless.

take everything

As the poster above said, what Fitzpatrick did is indefensible.
Anyone with a brain in their head and a conscience knows this.

It disgusts me watching him leaving the court with a broad grin on his face. This tells me he has no shame. he knows he did what he did. We know he did what he did. He got off because purely because Ireland ****s up when prosecuting white collar crime. And ****s up at a really basic level.

But seeing him grinning broadly would make any reasonable person angry.

Also, the fact that this went under the radar with the Manchester bombing tells me what a lucky chancer he is. This could have been much bigger in the media and now it will just die a death (like every other Irish scandal).

I honestly cannot see how anyone can defend him. He is the OJ of Irish white collar crime.

Mr.Micro

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he was found not guilty. It was a judge directed verdict of not guilty but a not guilty verdict nonetheless.

We have an incompetent prosecution service for cases like this. They could have hired proper competent professionals just for this case, they did not. It's hard to believe that these people get a salary for such breath taking incompetence and bizarre notions about investigating and prosecuting such a case. Shredding evidence, coaching witnesses, building a case, rather than using the facts in front of them. What a country. Who appoints these people and what level of competence is needed? Stupid question, it's Ireland, competence or merit does not come into it, it's who ya know. Might as well park any other such cases, as the clowns will do the same again.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We have an incompetent prosecution service for cases like this. They could have hired proper competent professionals just for this case, they did not. It's hard to believe that these people get a salary for such breath taking incompetence and bizarre notions about investigating and prosecuting such a case. Shredding evidence, coaching witnesses, building a case, rather than using the facts in front of them. What a country. Who appoints these people and what level of competence is needed? Stupid question, it's Ireland, competence or merit does not come into it, it's who ya know. Might as well park any other such cases, as the clowns will do the same again.

I'm not going to argue with any of that. Just correcting a poster who thinks he was not found not guilty.

Mr.Micro

take everything wrote: »

As the poster above said, what Fitzpatrick did is indefensible.
Anyone with a brain in their head and a conscience knows this.

It disgusts me watching him leaving the court with a broad grin on his face. This tells me he has no shame. he knows he did what he did. We know he did what he did. He got off because purely because Ireland ****s up when prosecuting white collar crime. And ****s up at a really basic level.

But seeing him grinning broadly would make any reasonable person angry.

Also, the fact that this went under the radar with the Manchester bombing tells me what a lucky chancer he is. This could have been much bigger in the media and now it will just die a death (like every other Irish scandal).

I honestly cannot see how anyone can defend him. He is the OJ of Irish white collar crime.

It beggars belief that they could not even make one of the charges stick, not one.

knipex

jmayo wrote: »

Long post

Question (well to be honest questions)

1. What is the penalty for non disclosure (or partial disclosure) of directors loans ?

2. Did they materially contribute to the failure of Anglo ?

3. How would you feel if Joe built a business, ran well for 10 years, employed 15 people but things went bad, he lost customers, couldn't get paid and went to the wall. 15 people lost their jobs company goes into liquidation, his suppliers get 50 cent on the euro.. Joe loses his company.

Is Joe a scumbag ??

jmayo

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We have an incompetent prosecution service for cases like this. They could have hired proper competent professionals just for this case, they did not. It's hard to believe that these people get a salary for such breath taking incompetence and bizarre notions about investigating and prosecuting such a case. Shredding evidence, coaching witnesses, building a case, rather than using the facts in front of them. What a country. Who appoints these people and what level of competence is needed? Stupid question, it's Ireland, competence or merit does not come into it, it's who ya know. Might as well park any other such cases, as the clowns will do the same again.

Another glaring example of this was yet another arrogant socialite tosspot breifne o'brien.
He admitted in 2008 that he had basically run a ponzi shcme and taken more than 10 million from friends and acquaintances.
He was finally brought to trial in 2014 on 45 charges of fraud and sentenced to 7 years in jail.
6 fooking years for a guy that admitted what he had done.

FFS bernie madoff was in jail within 6 months.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with any of that. Just correcting a poster who thinks he was not found not guilty.

Judge Aylmer said that after considering the arguments from both sides he had decided that in the interests of the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial he would direct the jury to find the former banking executive not guilty.

He said that the investigation, carried out by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE), fell short of an unbiased, impartial, balanced investigation that an accused is entitled to.

He said the investigation failed to seek out evidence as to the innocence as well as the guilt of the accused.

So basically he acquitted him because he felt he would not get a fair hearing in front of a jury.

knipex wrote: »

Question (well to be honest questions)

1. What is the penalty for non disclosure (or partial disclosure) of directors loans ?

Why don't you tell us.

BTW fitzpatrick has managed to wriggle free on quiet a few charges.

It is funny how three of fitzpatricks minions have been sentenced to jail for hiding information regarding his accounts.

O'Mahoney, who was second in command at the bank, received a three-year sentence while Daly, who held the more junior position, was sentenced to two years. Maguire was the lowest ranking of the three and received 18 months.

Yes we know some were quashed in court of appeal.

Another Anglo insider Willie McAteer, director of finance at the bank, went to jail for 3.5 years for his part in the ?7.2billion conspiracy to defraud in September 2008.

Former Anglo executives John Bowe and Willie McAteer and the former chief executive of IL&P, Denis Casey, were found guilty last month of agreeing a scheme to mislead the public about the true health of Anglo.

Bowe was sentenced to two years and Casey to two years and nine months.

BTW fitzpatrick was chairman until he resigned in December 2008. :rolleyes:

McAteer also received a 2.5 year concurrent sentence for getting an 8 million loan to buy shares.
Anglo director of lending Pat Whelan was been fined ?3,000 for failing to keep a proper register of that fraudulent ?8 million loan.

McAteer, obtained the ?8 million loan as the bank was on the brink of collapse.

So a hell of a lot of people around fitzpatrick, bar of course the flight risk drumm, have gone to jail.
fitzpatrick even got out of the Maple Ten loan scandal.
Something that would definitely have gotten him jail time in the US.

ftizpatrick was charged with 27 offences under the 1990 Companies Act.

These included 21 charges of making a misleading, false or deceptive statement to auditors and six charges of furnishing false information in the years 2002 to 2007.

knipex wrote: »

2. Did they materially contribute to the failure of Anglo ?

Ah yes the old chestnut of sure they didn't lead to the collapse and sure they weren't that big in the grand scheme of things.

You are correct it wasn't those undeclared hidden and now unpaid loans, correction they were paid for by the TAXPAYER, weren't the ones that sunk the bank.

BUT all the other dodgy loans he dished out in the Shelbourne to his developer mates, the ones with fook all security, the ones that weren't properly recorded, the ones that involved shag all due diligence were the ones that sunk Anglo.
And he had his greasy little paws all over them.

knipex wrote: »

3. How would you feel if Joe built a business, ran well for 10 years, employed 15 people but things went bad, he lost customers, couldn't get paid and went to the wall. 15 people lost their jobs company goes into liquidation, his suppliers get 50 cent on the euro.. Joe loses his company.

Is Joe a scumbag ??

Talk about a false comparison.

I would think Joe was a scumbag if he dumped all the debts he ran up on the taxpayers and citizens of the state.

I would think he was a hyprocritcal ar**hole if knowing he had fooked up to the tunes of billions and those debts were now on the taxpayers and citizens, but yet was on radio lecturing normal honest people how to live and do business.

You make it sound as if fitzpatrick and his minions had no hand, act or part in how things went bad.
They didn't just lose customers, they had picked too many of the wrong type of customers in the first place.

And the only supplies who got any pay out from Anglo were other banks, lenders, bondholders, etc.

Oh and the ones that ponied up that money were the normal taxpayers, past, current and future of this state.

I just find it incredible that some people are actually defending him and his actions. :mad:

If this is the stance some it seems within our business and finance community still hold then we have learned nothing from the mess that befell our state.

And when the next mess happens, as it surely will going on the above mindset, God help those involved because justice will surely be served by the people themselves.

ohnonotgmail

jmayo wrote: »

he would direct the jury to find the former banking executive not guilty.

So basically he acquitted him because he felt he would not get a fair hearing in front of a jury.

.

what part of that are you and others having difficulty with? the judge directed that the jury find him not guilty. he is therefore not quilty. the reason the judge did that is not because he would not get a fair hearing but because there was not enough evidence for a conviction. Directed verdicts of not guilty are given because the judge thinks that the prosecution has not made a sufficient case. The prosecution in this case was an absolute shambles and there is no reasonable jury that could have convicted him on the evidence presented. Dance around that all you like but those are the facts.

Cyrus

jmayo wrote: »

And when the next mess happens, as it surely will going on the above mindset, God help those involved because justice will surely be served by the people themselves.

i suppose anarchy fits in with your agenda to jail people not found guilty of crimes