Cork Solicitors Jailed

corks finest

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Possibly. But at the end of the day if they can't recruit women with families do to their bidding, they will just find some other way of doing it. And even if they do get women, while the women will get off with a slap on the wrist, the ringleaders at the top will get the usual punishments for their leading and organising role in the scams, and possibly also face punishment for recruiting women.

Someone I know was pregnant and decided to make the most of her condition by going on a relentless campaign of daily high-end shoplifting, knowing that even if she did get caught, the courts would be very reluctant to send a pregnant woman who already has a toddler to prison. As it turned out, she did eventually get apprehended she got a custodial sentence but it was hugely curtailed and she only served a few weeks before coming out again. As soon as she was out it was back to the high fashion shop lifting. Stuff was being stolen to order and even tried selling items to people working in the probation.
Absolutely blatant, brazen and shameless theft resulting in good money for a few hours in town, safe in the knowledge she wouldn't face anything more than a slap on the wrist. And the thing about it is, she isn't a typical druggie scumbag at all. A pleasant and intelligent woman, kind mother, looks after herself well, dresses nice, but this is her way of earning extra. The occasional stint in jail is just a part of the routine when things go against her. Even then she is taking orders and lining up what items must be located, security sussed out and then robbed for when she gets out. If you passed her on the street you would never think she was a career criminal. And her normal, unassuming appearance and demeanour is part of it too - she doesn't look like a typical petty criminal. But you could leave your phone, wallet on the table and she would never touch it. She wouldn't rob from a person - only against the likes of department stores and high end chains. As she recognises, they account for losses and thefts in their accounting anyway, so it is not even a victimless crime in her eyes, it is just part of business and she is fulfilling a role that the corporations know exists and they account for it. I admire the steely attitude.

Both should have thought of the end result if caught,
Were they thinking of the poor ***** they used? No
As they were insignificant street ppl their privelaged eyes, bring quite honest I wished the ****ers got more time ,I'd a kid brother who overdosed on the streets and died in mcdonald's jacks Daunt sq and it maddens me that ppl like those 2 were using ppl like him who had nothing left not even their dignity

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

victimless crimes.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

You should do stand-up.

silver2020

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

From the Twitter is seems she'd a dalliance with Fine Gael.

corks finest wrote: »

FG connections

Imagine if you checked the background of every convicted criminal for possible political "dalliances"

It would have SF/IRA leading all the other parties put together by multiples of multiples.

fryup

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Thread title a bit misleading - both had already been struck off for other reasons prior to this.

and what were those other reasons?? (can't be arsed googling)

btw- did they run a legal firm together or did they work for a firm?

TheBoyConor

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags. I am actually just a bit disappointed that the money was located and given back. I wish they had got the money in cash and hidden it somewhere before the were caught and then claimed they gambled it or something.

The only institution I would have any sympathy for is the credit unions. I don't approve of that. But the banks - fúck the banks. €400k isn't pissing money for them. Bravo.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

i didn't realise they allowed internet in prison

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags. I am actually just a bit disappointed that the money was located and given back. I wish they had got the money in cash and hidden it somewhere before the were caught and then claimed they gambled it or something.

The only institution I would have any sympathy for is the credit unions. I don't approve of that. But the banks - fúck the banks. €400k isn't pissing money for them. Bravo.

Ah here.
Sure if we all ripped off the banks because "they rode the hole off the country", we'd have some basketcase of an economy.

Someone, somewhere pays for a "victimless crime", usually through increased premiums to offset fraud, which are passed on as charges to the rest of us.

Thus isn't Robin Hood stuff.

POBox19

Quoting from the Examiner:
“AIB never missed it. We might give the AIB money to charity. They didn’t know what they gave out, they didn’t miss it. If they want it back, they should come to court (on Friday). At some stage AIB are going to have to stop losing money.
“We are used to financial institutions making honest efforts to bankrupt themselves. AIB did so on three separate occasions. It is not something we should be surprised at… We the people of Ireland have no reason to believe the AIB will ever cop themselves on because we will bail them out. History speaks for itself,” Judge Ó Donnabháin said.

AIB must be the bank where slow learners go for the safe jobs. Looks like you can rock up to any branch with a bit of dodgy id and help yourself to a fist full of cash, they won't miss it.

fryup

seems BOI are the hero's in this case

fryup

fryup wrote: »

seems BOI are the hero's in this case

Fair play to your man that copped it.
(Alan Boland)

It would make a great film!

fryup

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

It would make a great film!

or Primetime special, fingers crossed

Guy:Incognito

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

Should a woman with a small child to take car of not be more incentivised by having said child to not commit crime and risk the child being punished for her actions?


Much like this thing of people who need their cars for work getting reduced or no real punishment when they go to court for things like drink driving. They should have ****ing thought of how much they rely on the car to earn a living.

mike_cork

TheBoyConor wrote: »

She has a small child for whom she is the primary carer.
I think even 2 years is a grossly excessive sentence for the mother of a young child to get for wholly non-violent and victimless crimes. All imprisoning her will do is punish the innocent child. I hope she appeals.

Sorry,but that is the one of the worst takes I've ever seen.
Just because you have a child, it doesn't give you carte blanche regarding the law/committing crime.

saabsaab

tdf7187 wrote: »

I worked in banking and came across and investigated this type of thing (professionals running ID and loan fraud factories, essentially). There were at least half-a-dozen people involved, one of who had an FF connection, and they were never prosecuted, in spite of detailed reports and numerous meetings with AGS.

I guess my reaction to the case is that it's the tip of an iceberg. Many similar frauds never reach the courts.

Yes you have to wonder how much never gets that far. I've head stories of fraud being quietly dealt with outside of the law so as not to embarrass the financial institution involved.

Apart from the cash that was recovered can any assets be sold off to retrieve the money? Is it possible that they've invested some of it and will still have it when they're released?

TheBoyConor

mike_cork wrote: »

Sorry,but that is the one of the worst takes I've ever seen.
Just because you have a child, it doesn't give you carte blanche regarding the law/committing crime.

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They did use homeless people to get their PPS numbers. While immoral and bad form, the fact is they didn't do them any harm either. They weren't any worse off after their interactions with these two. So while it was not a good deed, they didn't do anything harmful either.

You've no idea what those people went through. How many times were they arrested and grilled over missing payments and outstanding debts? How much of a beating has their right to a good name taken by these upstanding young citizens?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags.

You
Me
Everyone on Boards
And everyone else in the entire fcuking country who has to foot the bill for these snakes. But, yeah, sure, the banks rabble rabble rabble.

It is also extremely ironic that you're slating the banks for what they did while not giving a bollocks about 'de homeliss' in the same breath.

mike_cork

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

I'd really have to disagree with that tbh. You can't have a system where women with children are given preference over others. She committed a serious crime,she deserves jail.
I understand there's an innocent child involved but there has to be repercussions for a serious crime such as fraud.

Also just because it's the banks who were defrauded here....It doesnt make it any less of a crime.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I get where you are coming from, but equally, the state should not have carte blanche to send a mother of small children to prison. The removal of their mother would have a very detrimental effect on small children. Especially when they are so young. Even a few months could have life-long after effects on a child.

I am all for equality, but it is just plain wrong to take a mother away from her small children. The only exception i'd make is for serious stuff like extreme violence or murder where there is a high chance of re-offending, or where she was putting her own children in danger.

It is a bit of a conundrum. But luckily, most pregnant women and new mothers have enough to be doing without going on crime sprees.

That flies in the face of justice though.

A pregnant woman (or even a woman who may become pregnant) can do what they like as long as its not serious?

Naaa, not buying it.

Most people aren't going on crime sprees, whether pregnant or not, male or female.

TheBoyConor

mike_cork wrote: »

I'd really have to disagree with that tbh. You can't have a system where women with children are given preference over others. She committed a serious crime,she deserves jail.
I understand there's an innocent child involved but there has to be repercussions for a serious crime such as fraud.

Also just because it's the banks who were defrauded here....It doesnt make it any less of a crime.

We already have a system like that sure. Women get vastly more lenient sentences for the same crime. And they have a way easier time in prison and get released way quicker. There is plenty evidence for that.

She committed a crime, but realistically it is not a serious crime. No-body died or was injured or harmed in any way, and no distress or fear was caused to anybody. No animals were hurt. Sure AIB were so absolutely clueless they didn't even know money was missing!!!

There ought to be some repercussions, yes, but I don't think it is fair on the child that they would be separated from their mother because of their mothers actions. The child will have no concept or understanding of why their mother was taken away. That will be very traumatic for them. You can't seriously suggest that it is appropriate for trauma to be intentionally caused to a child, directly or indirectly, over something that their mother did? Can you?

There are consequences for the woman without a custodial sentence. She is out there now for all to see as being a cheat and a fraudster. She will be dispised in much of the community. Even that will have some knock on carry over to her child and family.

I think she should be named and shamed and given a fine and a suspended sentence. If jail time has to be done, let him do it.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Why did she get a much shorter sentence?

Because we only have a 155 spaces for women in the entire country.

So once you're hitting 156+, its just musical chairs.

Think how many are serving sentences for murder which should increase as the population does.
It pays to be a criminal and female as you'll get away with a lot due to the space issues.

Maybe if we weren't arresting people for selling drugs we'd have more room for the likes of this fella.
There was 6 men arrested recently for large seizures of Cannabis that will 'warrant' prison sentences... these spaces we're so short on, that could be occupied by people who deserve them.

Calahonda52

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Because we only have a 155 spaces for women in the entire country.

So once you're hitting 156+, its just musical chairs.

Think how many are serving sentences for murder which should increase as the population does.
It pays to be a criminal and female as you'll get away with a lot due to the space issues.

Maybe if we weren't arresting people for selling drugs we'd have more room for the likes of this fella.
There was 6 men arrested recently for large seizures of Cannabis that will 'warrant' prison sentences... these spaces we're so short on, that could be occupied by people who deserve them.

Need to privatise it, like in America and Hungary, works really well.
We could have our own Stricker in Cork harbour

wrmwit

Her smirking and pretend smiling walking in and out of court confirms she's proper nuts!

corks finest

fryup wrote: »

and what were those other reasons?? (can't be arsed googling)

btw- did they run a legal firm together or did they work for a firm?

She worked for him initially

RandRuns

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Keith Flynn and Lindsey Clarke- ex solicitors
Bringing the trade into disrepute.

That ship sailed a loooooooooong time ago I'm afraid.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Victimless crimes - yes. Who are the victims? The banks? The same banks of the golden circle who rode the hole off of this country. Fúck em. Those faceless corporations are the bigger scumbags. I am actually just a bit disappointed that the money was located and given back. I wish they had got the money in cash and hidden it somewhere before the were caught and then claimed they gambled it or something.

The only institution I would have any sympathy for is the credit unions. I don't approve of that. But the banks - fúck the banks. €400k isn't pissing money for them. Bravo.

You realise these banks are partly owned by the taxpayer now? Your argument would justify bank robbery.

saabsaab

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Need to privatise it, like in America and Hungary, works really well.
We could have our own Stricker in Cork harbour

Spiker?

Hangdogroad

Anyone have any dealings with them as solicitors?

fryup

wrmwit wrote: »

Her smirking and pretend smiling walking in and out of court confirms she's proper nuts!

but the both of them had a smirk,

i've seen it time and time again, its moneyed arrogance they were both probably used to a certain type of lifestyle when they were practicing solicitors and after they were disbarred they probably hatched a plan to keep up with the Jones by defrauding lending institutions, but in the end their arrogance was their downfall:cool:

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

KKV means that they ripped off institutions for €400k so that if they still had it and went to prison, they would still have that to look forward to when they got out, averaging 100k a year.

However, KKV forgets that the money was taken back off them and given back to the banks.

That's the point I was making (although the money wasn't all taken back).

Was there not another similar fraud case recently, where a woman, a teacher I think, took 370-ish thousand from an education board in Donegal? I think she got 3 years, which also averaged out about 100k in the pocket for doing a year in prison (of course no one ever does their full sentence, so it's more than that).

They threatened her house would need to be sold to recoup the money, but naturally, that never happened.

Again, if someone offered me 100k per year in mountjoy, I'd gladly take it. It's not really a punishment. Especially when you consider so many would go unpunished to begin with.