# What is being done about the Bankers implicated in the current crisis?



## onq (12 Oct 2011)

It appears that prosecutions may proceed against Anglo directors under Section 44 of the companies Act 1990

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/prosecutors-given-bank-fraud-file-2892336.html


That would be this section - 

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0033/sec0044.html#sec44



> 44.—(1) Subject to section 45 ,  a company which is, or is the holding company of, a licensed bank,  shall maintain a register containing a copy of every transaction,  arrangement or agreement of which particulars would, but for section 41 (6), be required by subsection (1) or (2)  of that section to be disclosed in the company's accounts or group  accounts for the current financial year and for each of the preceding  ten financial years (but excluding any financial year ending prior to  the passing of this Act) or, if such a transaction, arrangement or  agreement is not in writing, a written memorandum setting out its terms.
> 
> *(2) Subsection (1)  shall not require a company to keep in its register a copy of any  transaction, arrangement or agreement made for a connected person if—*
> 
> ...


This seems to be a totally toothless piece of legislation, with a get out of jail clause in Section 8 which appears to suggest a fine is acceptable.

Why aren't they looking at Section 31 or Section 41, for example?


----------



## Purple (12 Oct 2011)

Thanks for that ONQ. We can hope...


----------



## Jim2007 (12 Oct 2011)

onq said:


> Why aren't they looking at Section 31 or Section 41, for example?



It's late in the night and I'm about to call it a day, but at a quick glance I'd say that the chances are that the exceptions mentioned in S31 and S41 were probably met - note the 10% requirement and the fact that the stake in the company was to be 10%!!!

Remember many of these guys are ex auditors and as such they are very well aware of the disclosure requirements on things like director's loans, so it is unlikely that you are going to catch them out on something as basic as this!

Jim


----------



## onq (13 Oct 2011)

You're welcome Purple.

I split this from the other thread as it would have pulled it off topic and it sort of complements Brendan's previous thread in this forum about the lack of prosecutions, which I felt needed bringing into clearer focus.

Instead of vague comments from Barristers about the lack of a law being broken (company law anyway, whatever about treason) I wanted to read the act itself. This is only part of it.


----------



## onq (13 Oct 2011)

Jim2007 said:


> It's late in the night and I'm about to call it a day, but at a quick glance I'd say that the chances are that the exceptions mentioned in S31 and S41 were probably met - note the 10% requirement and the fact that the stake in the company was to be 10%!!!
> 
> Remember many of these guys are ex auditors and as such they are very well aware of the disclosure requirements on things like director's loans, so it is unlikely that you are going to catch them out on something as basic as this!
> 
> Jim




Thanks Jim,

On point as always and yes, I half expected to discover something like this.

It's almost as if the act was written with wrong doing in mind it has so many let-out clauses in it.


----------

