Former Anglo Irish Bank chief David Drumm released from prison

The J Stands for Jay

mariaalice wrote: »

How come his pension was not taken as part of the bankruptcy proceedings?

Because, technically, it doesn't belong to him.

Comhrá

TP_CM wrote: »

What does someone like him do for a living now? I know he wasn't stuck for cash but he presumably still has bills to pay which were accumulated during his boom time. Does he go and start like a consultancy firm or something?

Influencer maybe? They're all the fashion nowadays I believe.

PhilOssophy

There is nothing which galls me more than the family home and pension not being touchable as part of bankruptcy.
Yes I know he bought the home himself, and the pension he has paid in to, but surely such protections should only extend to a family home of a certain value and a certain amount of a pension? Bearing in mind, he probably put a huge percentage of an already huge salary into his pension.
It just seems like we don't really see what these guys do as a crime or something.
People like that ENRON guy (Jeffrey Shilling?) must be sickened when he sits in his jail cell, while we let people like Drumm, Fitzpatrick, Fingleton, John Delaney, etc. roam the streets as free men to live a lavish lifestyle with no consequences for their actions.

El Tarangu

TP_CM wrote: »

What does someone like him do for a living now? I know he wasn't stuck for cash but he presumably still has bills to pay which were accumulated during his boom time. Does he go and start like a consultancy firm or something?

He had a job when he was living in America - I think he worked for a building contractor or something.

ohnonotgmail

PhilOssophy wrote: »

There is nothing which galls me more than the family home and pension not being touchable as part of bankruptcy.
Yes I know he bought the home himself, and the pension he has paid in to, but surely such protections should only extend to a family home of a certain value and a certain amount of a pension? Bearing in mind, he probably put a huge percentage of an already huge salary into his pension.
It just seems like we don't really see what these guys do as a crime or something.
People like that ENRON guy (Jeffrey Shilling?) must be sickened when he sits in his jail cell, while we let people like Drumm, Fitzpatrick, Fingleton, John Delaney, etc. roam the streets as free men to live a lavish lifestyle with no consequences for their actions.

skilling was released 2 years ago. I'm sure he is quite happily living on the millions he made while working for enron. Over $100M in one year if I remember correctly. He was fined less than $50M so he is doing ok. Nobody should be shedding tears for him.

PhilOssophy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

skilling was released 2 years ago. I'm sure he is quite happily living on the millions he made while working for enron. Over $100M in one year if I remember correctly. He was fined less than $50M so he is doing ok. Nobody should be shedding tears for him.

Ah right, well at least he served a decent sentence for what he did. Didn't know he was now released.

Muahahaha

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I think a Late Late Show appearance is in order

Start his rehabilitation back into decent society

If he's got a family member with a terminal illness Tubs will have him in in a shot

jippo nolan

El Tarangu wrote: »

He had a job when he was living in America - I think he worked for a building contractor or something.

No doubt he was carrying hods of concrete blocks up a ladder!

Yurt2

Just had a listen to the Anglo tapes to remind myself what kind of character this guy was. Christ these guys thought they were the masters of the universe.

The tiger years really were an ugly time for the country. We let discount Gordon Gecko creeps take over our country's economy and way too many people were high as a kite on the hubris.

Were lessons learned? I'm not so sure.

BattleCorp

PhilOssophy wrote: »

There is nothing which galls me more than the family home and pension not being touchable as part of bankruptcy.

So, lets pretend you are bankrupt. And lets pretend that you and your wife and four kids live in the family home. And lets pretend your business goes wallop and you are now bankrupt, maybe through no fault of your own. You may have had a lease on a pub that you can't pay because of COVID-19. Do you think it's ok to throw you, your wife and your kids out on the side of the road?

I know that's not the case with Drumm, but if you bring in a law to target the likes of Drumm, that same law will target every other bankrupt person the same way.

Yurt2

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, lets pretend you are bankrupt. And lets pretend that you and your wife and four kids live in the family home. And lets pretend your business goes wallop and you are now bankrupt, maybe through no fault of your own. You may have had a lease on a pub that you can't pay because of COVID-19. Do you think it's ok to throw you, your wife and your kids out on the side of the road?

I know that's not the case with Drumm, but if you bring in a law to target the likes of Drumm, that same law will target every other bankrupt person the same way.

I agree with you that no one should be chucked out on the street because of bankruptcy. But, it's highly likely that characters like Drumm engaged in strategic bankruptcy squirreling away assets anywhere they could hide them. I think it should be within the powers of the court to force a severe downgrade in lifestyle if someone living is living that lifestlye from quite frankly ill-gotten gains in a palatial home. If that means selling up and downgrading to semi-detached suburbia, so be it. The CAB have wide ranging powers to do so for organised crime, and it should be the same for white-collar flavoured criminals like Drumm.

Constitutional protections on property are there to prevent the disproportionate seizure of a home. I think if the government got creative and had the will to apply moral hazard on white-collar crims, they could proportionately ensure Drumm pays his financial dues as well, via the sale of a trophy home.

PhilOssophy

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, lets pretend you are bankrupt. And lets pretend that you and your wife and four kids live in the family home. And lets pretend your business goes wallop and you are now bankrupt, maybe through no fault of your own. You may have had a lease on a pub that you can't pay because of COVID-19. Do you think it's ok to throw you, your wife and your kids out on the side of the road?

I know that's not the case with Drumm, but if you bring in a law to target the likes of Drumm, that same law will target every other bankrupt person the same way.

Well why should somebody else pay for my recklessness? If I am living in a house that's worth 2m quid, I don't believe that should be protected in any bankruptcy. If I am living in a modest 3-bed semi D, that should be. I don't think people should be thrown out onto the street, but I don't think living a flash lifestyle the minute you are bankrupt is fair either.

I know there is moral hazard on both the lender and the borrower, but I think people have to take responsibility at the same time.

Muahahaha

Yeah exactly, our laws allow them to maintain their life of luxury while the rest of society pays for it. Bankruptcy should involve them downgrading to an average house, otherwise whats the penalty for behaving recklessly.

iagreebut

Comhra wrote: »

Influencer maybe? They're all the fashion nowadays I believe.

I thought being cancelled was vogue now lol

BattleCorp

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If I am living in a house that's worth 2m quid, I don't believe that should be protected in any bankruptcy. If I am living in a modest 3-bed semi D, that should be. I don't think people should be thrown out onto the street, but I don't think living a flash lifestyle the minute you are bankrupt is fair either.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yeah exactly, our laws allow them to maintain their life of luxury while the rest of society pays for it. Bankruptcy should involve them downgrading to an average house, otherwise whats the penalty for behaving recklessly.

Hey, I'm all for Drumm being punished but there are lots of things at play here.

1. Yes, Drumm deserves to be fcuked out of his house for his wrongdoing.
2. Drumm's wife did no wrongdoing.
3. Drumm's kids did no wrongdoing.

Throwing them out of their house or forcing them to move to a smaller house in a less prestigous area punishes his wife and kids for his actions.

Another point is that his wife more than likely owns half of the family home. So that's half of it untouchable.

Another point is that the law must be applied equally. Why treat two people who did exactly the same thing differently just because one of them has a €2m house and the other guy has a €200k house? Why force one to move and not the other?

It's not quite so simple.

PhilOssophy

So extending that logic, should the income of a family of somebody who murders somebody should be also protected? I.e. if David Drumm had murdered somebody, should his wife and family get state maintenance equivalent to his income? After all, neither of them did anything wrong.....

It isn't valid in my opinion that a bankrupt person should get to continue a lavish lifestyle. If his wife and family suffer, that's his issue. What next - should we pay his children's private school fees also? They shouldn't suffer, no?

(Note I am neither socialist nor begrudging of wealth - I earn well as does OH. I just think there has to be a line drawn and if Drumm or the family of any other bankruptee lose out, sorry pal. Remember the intention of bankruptcy is to start again.)

Eric Cartman

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Something about garlic

Not garlic, Apples !

BattleCorp

PhilOssophy wrote: »

So extending that logic, should the income of a family of somebody who murders somebody should be also protected? I.e. if David Drumm had murdered somebody, should his wife and family get state maintenance equivalent to his income? After all, neither of them did anything wrong.....

To use your example, if Drumm murdered someone, his wife and kids wouldn't lose their home as part of the case against their husband/father. The only way they would possibly lose their home in that case would be if there was a mortgage on the house and they couldn't pay it due to losing their partners/fathers earnings.

The income of Drumm's family isn't protected. The only think that's protected is the family home, at least half of which is owned by Drumm's wife so even if the law was changed to allow the house to be taken from them, 50% of the house is untouchable. And Mrs. Drumm would be perfectly entitled to say that she isn't willing to sell half of her house.

It isn't valid in my opinion that a bankrupt person should get to continue a lavish lifestyle. If his wife and family suffer, that's his issue. What next - should we pay his children's private school fees also? They shouldn't suffer, no?

The State aren't paying his kid's private school fees. But I get your point.

I agree with you that a bankrupt person shouldn't get to continue a lavish lifestyle, but there isn't an easy solution. Lads like Drumm are clever and will rarely end up a pauper. Assets can be hidden, put in a family member's name etc. Very difficult to get a one-size-fits-all bankruptcy regime.

PhilOssophy

I agree with you BattleCorp, there is no one-size-fits-all re bankruptcy.
You are also right, these lads know full well where to put assets to protect themselves when the sh1t hits the fan which they were probably expecting to happen at some point anyway given the way they were carrying on!
Yeah I know the state aren't paying his kids school fees, it was an example.
I think though the fundamentals of bankruptcy should be that if you are starting again, and you have a house worth 2-3m, only the first 300-400 max of that should be protected. That'd allow him to start off and not be turfed out onto the street.
Tough circle to square, that's for sure.

AndrewJRenko

BattleCorp wrote: »

To use your example, if Drumm murdered someone, his wife and kids wouldn't lose their home as part of the case against their husband/father. The only way they would possibly lose their home in that case would be if there was a mortgage on the house and they couldn't pay it due to losing their partners/fathers earnings.

The income of Drumm's family isn't protected. The only think that's protected is the family home, at least half of which is owned by Drumm's wife so even if the law was changed to allow the house to be taken from them, 50% of the house is untouchable. And Mrs. Drumm would be perfectly entitled to say that she isn't willing to sell half of her house.

When couples split up, if one party doesn't want to sell, they have to buy the other one out. A similar approach in bankruptcy would be reasonable. Either the wife buys out the other half of the property, with the cash raised going to the creditors, or the house gets sold and she gets half the proceeds.

BattleCorp

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

When couples split up, if one party doesn't want to sell, they have to buy the other one out. A similar approach in bankruptcy would be reasonable. Either the wife buys out the other half of the property, with the cash raised going to the creditors, or the house gets sold and she gets half the proceeds.

What if she doesn't have the resources to buy the other half of the house? It's also not so straightforward making someone sell a house when kids are under 18 or over 18 but in full-time education.

Fine and dandy to get half of a €3m house as there'd be €1.25m left over to buy a smaller house but not so hot if they live in a semi-d in Leitrim worth €125k.

AndrewJRenko

BattleCorp wrote: »

What if she doesn't have the resources to buy the other half of the house? It's also not so straightforward making someone sell a house when kids are under 18 or over 18 but in full-time education.

Fine and dandy to get half of a €3m house as there'd be €1.25m left over to buy a smaller house but not so hot if they live in a semi-d in Leitrim worth €125k.

Fair point - perhaps it should e a threshold over average house size/value that would trigger selling off.

BattleCorp

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fair point - perhaps it should e a threshold over average house size/value that would trigger selling off.

Is that legally possible?

smurgen

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is that legally possible?

If 2.5 years off a sentence is legal I don't see why not.