# Drumm deal blocks garda access to 'sensitive' files



## onq (17 Jan 2011)

_"Under the terms of the agreement with Anglo, Mr Drumm can seek the  immediate return of certain documents, or request that they be  destroyed, once his bankruptcy case is concluded."_

This is beyond a joke.

ONQ.


----------



## frankmac (17 Jan 2011)

You are totally correct, but you will probably be told that this should be in the "Let off steam" section


----------



## DrMoriarty (18 Jan 2011)

OK, one potentially libellous post removed for a start. By all means feel free to debate the legal/moral issues, or link to published sources elsewhere, but don't allege or imply anything about any individual.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jan 2011)

The question is why would Anglo agree to this?  Also do the documents not belong to Anglo?  And wouldn't the gardai have access to all documents if they are investigating Anglo.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

DrMoriarty said:


> OK, one potentially libellous post removed for a start. By all means feel free to debate the legal/moral issues, or link to published sources elsewhere, but don't allege or imply anything about any individual.



I see you're policing my posts, Moriarty.
Please eleborate on what you found disquieting.
Since the post has been deleted and I have no copy I cannot defend myself against your allegations of "potential libel".

Send me a PM if you like.

ONQ.

=====================

I should note for the record that Moriarty has clarified this and confusion arose from my misunderstanding. Apologies, Moriarity.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

frankmac said:


> You are totally correct, but you will probably be told that this should be in the "Let off steam" section



A one-liner hardly qualifies as a rant nor do I feel that every contentious issue should be bundled off to "Letting off steam" when it is possible to discuss them civilly in the appropriate forum.

On the contrary this post was intended to provoke discussion about how the state can possibly secure convictions in criminal actions if the proof of any wrongdoing can be sequestered by what amounts to a contract between two parties, both of whom may or may not be guilty of offences.

This is a matter highlighted in the public eye since Drumm's flight to  the states and a follow up piece on RTE questioning where he was getting  his money from.

Has this recent legal action just stoped the state from investigation of any wrongdoing by the banks? Who benefits from this? 

This follows on Alan Dukes inability or unwillingness to obtain encryption codes held by form anglo Irish Bank Employeses.

With possible investigations being frustrated in this way, how can the national interest be served?

At the very least the offence of interfering in an ongoing investigation may be brought in - but was this one of the reasons for the softly, softy approach to date with no convictions?

ONQ.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

Bronte said:


> The question is why would Anglo agree to this?  Also do the documents not belong to Anglo?  And wouldn't the gardai have access to all documents if they are investigating Anglo.



That, Bronte, is the core of the issue.

If documents are destroyed, that would effectively neuter any investigation of both Drumm's and Anglo's affairs.

Whatever about keeping some privity in the matter, which I would support to ensure a fair trial if it ever came to that, the issue of destroying documents is what caught my attention.

Contract being private to the parties is something that the courts uphold in this jurisdiction, but before this I understood that a criminal investigation had powers that overrode matters of private contract.

I'm getting the same feeling I had when I learnt that the Church expected the state to honour Canon Law when certain internal matters came to light many years back.

The idea that there could be a parallel body of law of legal court that might allow people to avoid prosecution, or in this case even investigation, is worrying.

Moriarty, please note that I used the term "avoid" and not "evade" to avoid an implied or possible libel.

Since the judgement is issued, the matter is no longer before the courts.

The subject matter is a matter of intense public concern I believe.


----------



## DrMoriarty (18 Jan 2011)

Relax, ONQ, it was another post I deleted.

Are you trying to impugn my reputation as a moderator?


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

Geez, the posts are falling like flies! 

Apologies if I took my morning exercise [jumping at conclusions] and thanks for clearing that up.

However I noted another thread I started seemed to be missing and I made that connection.


ONQ.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jan 2011)

It could simply be that under US bankruptcy proceedings that the defendant is entitled to have all documents relating to the trial/proceedings be destroyed.

At least in the US they seem to have a properly functioning and open legal system which performs in timescales unheard of in an Irish context. Why is that I wonder.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

Well, the report states:

_"According to legal sources, Anglo reached terms of agreement with Mr  Drumm to deal with confidential documents as there is no standard  procedure in American law to deal with claims of confidentiality or  restrictions on the use of sensitive material."_

I take that to mean that in America - Drumms new home - there is no means to muzzle a case and he's relying on an Irish contract matter to do so internationally.
This could draw a veil over any matters raised in relation to ethical behaviour and "fiduciary duty".
Perhaps I'm misreading the position.

I have to admit some sympatico with Drumm - not sympathy, but I can appreciate where he is coming from.
He was one of the highest flyers of the Celtic Tiger, brought down low as he might see it in his own eyes.
Now he is doing his best to ring fence his position legally and financially to protect himself and his family.

I cannot say that if I were in his position I would be doing any less.

ONQ.


----------



## dahamsta (18 Jan 2011)

Judges in the US can and do suppress documents, so that can't be it.

I have zero respect for him. He lost the right to privacy a long time ago.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

I see, so in the text I referred to the issue is that there is no "standard procedure" to do this, as opposed to there being no way at all to do this.

Thx.

ONQ.


----------



## Bronte (18 Jan 2011)

Maybe it was the only way Anglo could get Drumm to agree to meet with them.  Does he have an obligation under US law in relation to his Irish creditor's, I think not.


----------



## onq (18 Jan 2011)

To cross jurisdictions could need an international arrrest warrant.

I cannot help but feel that Drumm's exit was well-planned.

I expect his legal strategy has been well-thought out.

ONQ.


----------



## DrMoriarty (25 Feb 2011)

Better planned than we realised, apparently.

[broken link removed].

Why is there no comment from the Revenue, I wonder?


----------



## Protocol (25 Feb 2011)

Let me get this straight.............


Drumm's employer paid him 10m in wages over a few years, on which he paid 10,000 in income tax.

That's 0.1% income tax.

His employer bank also loaned him millions.

He now claims he can't repay them 8.5m..............

[broken link removed]


 I JUST CAN'T GET OVER IT.

How can you possibly claim bankruptcy if you were paid 10m in wages over the last few years?


----------



## Liamos (25 Feb 2011)

I was listening to this on the radio this morning. Is this accurate? The reporter kept saying that Drumm was getting rebates of a few thousand each year. But of course you can only get a rebate if you pay tax in the first place. You could pay €500,000 in tax, but if your actual liability is €498,000 then you get a €2000 refund! It doesn't mean that you didn't pay any tax. So, in this case did he really only pay €10000 in tax?


----------



## aristotle (25 Feb 2011)

Seems so...

[broken link removed]

I assume he made some large pension payments or investments into some other schemes that allowed him to reduce his tax bill.

It reads badly but what he did was legal. I would love to know the details on how he managed to reduce his tax bill by so much.

He is claiming bankruptcy because he has large borrowings and cannot repay. Earning 10m is all very well but if you borrow 20m and then cannot repay then you are looking at bankruptcy.


----------



## Bronte (25 Feb 2011)

Can't fathom this story at all.  Looks like he basically paid zero tax on earning millions.  What scheme exists to allow this?  Don't all paye workers have to pay tax or at least some tax, doesn't even look like he paid even 1% tax?

It's very interesting watching the goings on in the US as he seems to be tying himself up in knots.   Wish our court systems were so quick and transparent.


----------



## DrMoriarty (26 Feb 2011)

Whoops! Red faces at the _IT_...

[broken link removed]


----------



## shanegl (26 Feb 2011)

Thought the rich didn't pay much tax?

Very confusing.


----------



## TLC (26 Feb 2011)

DrMoriarty said:


> Whoops! Red faces at the _IT_...
> 
> [broken link removed]


 
Apologies to Drumm then - he must be struggling after paying all that tax - maybe we should be feeling sorry for him now he's on his uppers - NOT!


----------



## Bronte (28 Feb 2011)

TLC said:


> Apologies to Drumm then - he must be struggling after paying all that tax - maybe we should be feeling sorry for him now he's on his uppers - NOT!


 
Maybe he needs to go and see Mabs.  For a many with such a high position and such wealth he seems to have been very silly with money.


----------



## TLC (28 Feb 2011)

Getting back to his agreement with Anglo - just because Anglo agreed to it surely that doesn't mean the Gardai cannot access information during an investigation. Wouldn't Anglo be judged to be withholding information?


----------

