Irish businessman stopped from leaving China.

walshb

Yurt! wrote: »

The guy is related to Garret Fitzgerald. The Department of Foreign Affairs have been aware and mobilized on his issue since day 1. Whether that's any use or effective is another matter. Your post was silly and had zero to do with the topic at hand.

I am well aware the dept foreign affairs/govt are helping

Read my post again.

Next to no parties..the usual populist parties not a peep out of them on it.

They’d be shouting from the rooftops if he was some inner city howya...

That was my point..

Yurt2

walshb wrote: »

I am well aware the dept foreign affairs/govt are helping

Read my post again.

Next to no parties..the usual populist parties not a peep out of them on it.

They’d be shouting from the rooftops if he was some inner city howya...

That was my point..

If you say so

Yurt2

walshb wrote: »

I am well aware the dept foreign affairs/govt are helping

Read my post again.

Next to no parties..the usual populist parties not a peep out of them on it.

They’d be shouting from the rooftops if he was some inner city howya...

That was my point..

Motion from the Seanad,moved cross-party, including by Senators from parties you would doubtless characterize as populist, howiya defenders blah blah blah. You may pipe down now



8.“That Seanad Éireann:-condemns the unlawful and protracted detention of Richard O’Halloran, a citizen of Ireland, in the People’s Republic of China; and calls on:-the Chinese authorities to release him immediately; and-the Irish Government to raise in every appropriate venue,including the United Nations and the European Union,its demand for his immediate release.”–Senators Michael McDowell, Gerard Craughwell, Victor Boyhan, Sharon Keogan, Rónán Mullen, David Norris, Lynn Ruane, Eileen Flynn, Ivana Bacik, Annie Hoey, Rebecca Moynihan, Marie Sherlock, Mark Wall, Vincent P. Martin, Mary Seery Kearney, Malcolm Byrne, Lynn Boylan, Paul Gavan, Niall Ó Donnghaile, Fintan Warfield, Frances Black, Diarmuid Wilson, Mary Fitzpatrick

Best stay clear of totalitarian commie dictatorships I would say

El Tarangu

political analyst wrote: »

He'd be in breach of Irish company law if he just signed the ownership of the plane away to the Chinese. If you want to know what breaching Irish company law leads to then just ask David Drumm!

Well, he's currently imprisoned (after a fashion) on the other side of the world; if I were him, I would be willing to sign the plane over and take my chances with the Irish judicial system.

MadYaker

El Tarangu wrote: »

Well, he's currently imprisoned (after a fashion) on the other side of the world; if I were him, I would be willing to sign the plane over and take my chances with the Irish judicial system.

Thats the clear and obvious choice based on the info ive read anyway. The fact that the man in question hasn't done this would suggest to me there is more to this that we don't know about. Id much rather be on the wrong side of the law here than there. Even prison here would be better than his current situation.

Yurt2

Sunday Business Post has it that Martin has written to Li Keqiang, and Higgins similarly has written to Xi Jinping on O'Halloran's exit-ban.

China however has been fuming about the Canadian led declaration on arbitrary detention in China, which to my knowledge, Ireland has put its (meagre) weight behind as well. The CCP hates being called out publically, so it remains to be seen how they will react to the letters. O'Halloran's situation is part of a much bigger picture, regrettably for him.

Things are probably at a very delicate stage, so fingers crossed we'll see some movement and the man gets to go home to his family.

Beechwoodspark

Something odd about this case

Would love to see the complete file on this one.

Beechwoodspark

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

We are only getting his side of what happened in fairness, RTE went all out with the sob story last night but the reality is nobody here knows for sure if he has a case to answer or not.

This. Something slightly off about his interview

I’d reserve judgement until we find out more.

I thought I read that when the alleged crime occurred he wasn't even an employee of that company so why they would hold him I don't know. Then again, it is China.

Yurt2

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Something odd about this case

Would love to see the complete file on this one.

While the ins and outs of aviation leasing are complex, to me O'Halloran's case is fairly straightforward.

There's a reason most aviation activity and transactions are booked through Ireland and Singapore; because they are common law jurisdictions with trusted independent judiciaries and a developed commercial law framework to arbitrate and resolve disputes such as this. However the cards fall, that's why contracts stipulate where commercial disagreements get solved, and I'll guarantee you this contract was not to be mediated through a Chinese court - nobody does it that way and with very good reason.

The commercial aspects of this case could and should be settled through a commercial court in Ireland. Instead, someone in China has enough pull to hold a man hostage to try to get their way.

It's flat out wrong, and it's an alarm bell that will be ringing throughout the Irish aviation leasing sector about playing with Chinese money, which they were pretty giddy about for a long time.

Captcha

Yurt! wrote: »

While the ins and outs of aviation leasing are complex, to me O'Halloran's case is fairly straightforward.

There's a reason most aviation activity and transactions are booked through Ireland and Singapore; because they are common law jurisdictions with trusted independent judiciaries and a developed commercial law framework to arbitrate and resolve disputes such as this. However the cards fall, that's why contracts stipulate where commercial disagreements get solved, and I'll guarantee you this contract was not to be mediated through a Chinese court - nobody does it that way and with very good reason.

The commercial aspects of this case could and should be settled through a commercial court in Ireland. Instead, someone in China has enough pull to hold a man hostage to try to get their way.

It's flat out wrong, and it's an alarm bell that will be ringing throughout the Irish aviation leasing sector about playing with Chinese money, which they were pretty giddy about for a long time.

https://hongkongfp.com/2021/02/21/plight-of-irish-businessman-trapped-in-mainland-china-sounds-warning-for-hong-kong/

“The current directors of CALS then tried sending $200,000 to the Chinese court which is now in charge of Mr Min’s case. This provoked a fierce police interrogation of Mr O’Halloran, apparently aimed at finding out how much his colleagues might be good for. He was then told that the price of freedom was US$36 million.“

MadYaker

The whole thing so sounds fishy. How could an aircraft leasing company only have one aircraft to their name and it be their only asset? They don't have offices or a premises anywhere?

Mr Min got into trouble in his home country over suggestions that he had collected money from China investors and exported it through the usual murky channels to buy an aircraft in Dublin which, it appears, is the only asset of CALS. The plane has been rented out on a long lease to a Finnish airline.

That's from the article linked in the post above.

Unknownability

MadYaker wrote: »

The whole thing so sounds fishy. How could an aircraft leasing company only have one aircraft to their name and it be their only asset? They don't have offices or a premises anywhere?



That's from the article linked in the post above.

That's not fishy at all if you understood aircraft / machinery leasing. Set up a company for nearly every transaction.

UDAWINNER

There is a light wrote: »

I thought I read that when the alleged crime occurred he wasn't even an employee of that company so why they would hold him I don't know. Then again, it is China.

It was on primetime the alleged crimes happened months (10,I Believe), before he was an actual employee. Shocking that an Irish Citizen is being treated this way and fcuk all being done.

Yurt2

UDAWINNER wrote: »

It was on primetime the alleged crimes happened months (10,I Believe), before he was an actual employee. Shocking that an Irish Citizen is being treated this way and fcuk all being done.

The Chinese have been seriously acting the maggot with arbitrary detentions of foreign citizens. Their legal system is nothing of the sort, it follows decrees and orders from the party. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada and many more have had serious trouble with China trying to kick them around. Ireland hasn't yet, but this is a small taster of what can happen.

The greater a country's economic exposure to China, the more cases like this you'll see. Have no doubt, as long as it is ruled by the CCP, China will become a greater and greater long-term challenge for any country with significant dealings with it.

Deng Xiaoping's hide your strength and bide your time' maxim no longer applies. China thinks it can do what it wants, and the day they overtake the US as the preeminent economic power in the world, we'll be wishing for the Americans to get their sh*t together and reclaim their place.

MadYaker

Unknownability wrote: »

That's not fishy at all if you understood aircraft / machinery leasing. Set up a company for nearly every transaction.

But he’s been working for this one company for years.

smellyoldboot

The more we continue to do business with this rogue state, the more we enable this kind of **** to continue. Are cheap gadgets really worth the cost of supporting China's evil empire?

kona

Unknownability wrote: »

That's not fishy at all if you understood aircraft / machinery leasing. Set up a company for nearly every transaction.

Is that true? I must give aercap a call later, tell them they are doing it wrong

marieholmfan

Hand over the plane Richard.

Some politically connected millionaire is in trouble?

I couldn't care less.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Hand over the plane Richard.

Some politically connected millionaire is in trouble?

I couldn't care less.

Ooohh we got an edgelord here.

Begrudgery and insecurity around your own failings in life shining through.

Don't live a life of bitterness, it's not good for you.

marieholmfan

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With respect, why should it get attention?
The guy has an option to return to Ireland, but chooses not to.
I don't see it requiring Dept of Foreign Affairs intervention or anything - why should it?

He is Garret Fitzgerald's nephew and got married at the K Club. Why should he ever suffer?

mariaalice wrote: »

He can't apparently because the Irish leasing company that owners the plane has been dissolved that is one of the strange bits of the case.

It looks like he is being made the fall guy for an elaborate fraud.

Bizarre assumption.

Jermaine Zealous Stationery wrote: »

Ooohh we got an edgelord here.

Begrudgery and insecurity around your own failings in life shining through.

Don't live a life of bitterness, it's not good for you.

Thanks Jermaine Zealous Stationery. You're so kind!

archer22

Looks like the attempt to rip off the Chinese has gone pear shaped ha ha

My sympathy is with the thousands of investors who were scammed by this fraud, perhaps RTE can fly back out there and interview some of them next time.

Anyhow their government is doing a great job of ensuring they get their money back one way or the other

political analyst

marieholmfan wrote: »

Hand over the plane Richard.

Some politically connected millionaire is in trouble?

I couldn't care less.

And risk prosecution in Ireland?

Unknownability

kona wrote: »

Is that true? I must give aercap a call later, tell them they are doing it wrong

LOL, you couldn't have picked a better company.

https://investors.aercap.com/shareholder-resources/sec-filings/content/0001047469-18-001434/a2234723zex-8_1.htm

For the most part of those imaginatively named companies the sole asset will be one aircraft.

Qiaonasen

marieholmfan wrote: »

Hand over the plane Richard.

Some politically connected millionaire is in trouble?

I couldn't care less.

I assume you are referring to O'Halloran as a millionaire and because of this you don't care. Correct me if I am wrong but that is my assumption.

A man is being imprisoned in a country for a crime he had no part in. Technically he has an exit ban but China is a large open prison more or less. That in and of itself is a disgrace. Whether he is related to a former Taoiseach and has a bit of money is irrelevant. This happens with China all the time. The have arbitrarily detained two random Canadians because one of their Communist Princesses is on trial in Canada. They are gangsters and by trading with them we legitimize their vile and disgusting behaviour. China is a menace and scary place. If you have been there you might discovered it is basically one of the most repressive regimes on earth. The people are brainwashed beyond belief and it is a country that should be given the same treatment as North Korea. We should be dealing with Taiwan. Not the gangsters in Zhongnanhai.

Qiaonasen

Qiaonasen wrote: »

I assume you are referring to O'Halloran as a millionaire and because of this you don't care. Correct me if I am wrong but that is my assumption.

A man is being imprisoned in a country for a crime he had no part in. Technically he has an exit ban but China is a large open prison more or less. That in and of itself is a disgrace. Whether he is related to a former Taoiseach and has a bit of money is irrelevant. This happens with China all the time. The have arbitrarily detained two random Canadians because one of their Communist Princesses is on trial in Canada. They are gangsters and by trading with them we legitimize their vile and disgusting behaviour. China is a menace and scary place. If you have been there you might discovered it is basically one of the most repressive regimes on earth. The people are brainwashed beyond belief and it is a country that should be given the same treatment as North Korea. We should be dealing with Taiwan. Not the gangsters in Zhongnanhai.

So we shouldn't be doing business with China because they are gangsters, but we should be going out of our way
to help the man who was doing business with this regime because...?

You compare China to North Korea.
If he was held by the North Koreans, resulting from business he was conducting with them, would you be condemning the North Koreans or the businessman, or both?

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

So we shouldn't be doing business with China because they are gangsters, but we should be going out of our way
to help the man who was doing business with this regime because...?

You compare China to North Korea.
If he was held by the North Koreans, resulting from business he was conducting with them, would you be condemning the North Koreans or the businessman, or both?

Because he's an Irish citizen being held arbitrarily, has been accused of no wrongdoing by prosecutors in any country, and is being detained contrary to all international laws and standards.

kona

Unknownability wrote: »

LOL, you couldn't have picked a better company.

https://investors.aercap.com/shareholder-resources/sec-filings/content/0001047469-18-001434/a2234723zex-8_1.htm

For the most part of those imaginatively named companies the sole asset will be one aircraft.

But is it a seperate company for each lease/transaction etc?

There is certainly something else going on that isnt being made public, a horrendous situation to be caught in. Id assume it would cause other people in the industry to become fairly wary of any similar trips to beijing on "business". Hopefully its sorted out asap, no job/money/airplane is worth that ****e.

Unknownability

kona wrote: »

But is it a seperate company for each lease/transaction etc?

There is certainly something else going on that isnt being made public, a horrendous situation to be caught in. Id assume it would cause other people in the industry to become fairly wary of any similar trips to beijing on "business". Hopefully its sorted out asap, no job/money/airplane is worth that ****e.

90% of those companies will just contain one asset, you can look at the name and usually find the aircraft associated with it.

There would be a few companies that contain multiple aircraft.

You would have scenarios where whne the lease finishes the company is wound up and then rinse and repeat.

I've no understanding of the case other than it's not unusual to have a company with only one asset.