Anglo trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Attica

Registered User
Messages
47
If the judge directed that legal advice was to be disregarded by the jury in this case i.e. that the accused were responsible for their own decisions, then how can he logically take State advice into account when sentencing? Surely such highly paid executives were responsible for taking the decisions they did, legally and morally, regardless of legal or State advice. After all, ignorance is not a defence under the law. Particularly company law, which directors are supposed to know?
 
Attica said:
If the judge directed that legal advice was to be disregarded by the jury in this case i.e. that the accused were responsible for their own decisions, then how can he logically take State advice into account when sentencing? Surely such highly paid executives were responsible for taking the decisions they did, legally and morally, regardless of legal or State advice. After all, ignorance is not a defence under the law. Particularly company law, which directors are supposed to know?
Click to expand...

This was dealt with on tonight's PrimeTime by a NUI Galway law lecturer. There is a difference between what the judge (and jury) must take into account when determining guilt, versus what the judge may consider during sentencing after guilt is determined. He's allowed to consider extenuating circumstances that contribute to intent and culpability, as he has done here. Personally, there are aspects to this that seem shocking to me, but I'm not really surprised by the sentencing. I'm more concerned by a financial regulator who was beyond incompetent, who was allowed to ride off into the sunset with a payoff and fat pension. One more indicator that there is no such thing as accountability in Irish public life, as if we didn't know already.
 
"The Central Bank has substantially strengthened Ireland's capacity in financial regulation and supervision over the past number of years and introduced sweeping changes in supervisory practices.

It is confident that the shortcomings described by the Court would not recur today."

So there you have a firm kick in the testicular region for Pat Neary.
 
WizardDr said:
"The Central Bank has substantially strengthened Ireland's capacity in financial regulation and supervision over the past number of years and introduced sweeping changes in supervisory practices.

It is confident that the shortcomings described by the Court would not recur today."

So there you have a firm kick in the testicular region for Pat Neary.
Click to expand...

This is the same Central Bank who oversaw an insipid Review of Payment Protection Policies.
This is the same Central Bank who are still shuffling with Mortgage Arrears.
This is the same Central Bank who readily close down the little Brokers, put Credit Union movement under pressure ,yet permit their Big Bank friends continue to control them.
This is the same Central Banks whose Consumer arms Mandate is to PROTECT the consumer.

Mr Neary is but a symptom of Central Banks ongoing delusional malaise.
Our Regulators continue to talk the talk , whilst doing little and remaining accountable to no one.
 
I was amazed at some of the stuff that came out about the casual nature of these huge financial decisions.

They described how several of the Maple 10 agreed to help their buddies in Anglo on the spot, without any legal review, or risk review or whatever. I'm just amazed that anybody would make multi-million (or multi-tens-of-millions) decisions without professional advice.


And then, there is Neary, who can't seem to remember anything, and his colleagues....
 
The Anglo trial

Well no one expected any other result of the (whitewash) trial,;paddy;has been fooled again with smart words,and of course the law allows it,and the court allows it for now.
There will be another moral judgement for all concerned later.
 
eamo said:
Well no one expected any other result of the (whitewash) trial,;paddy;has been fooled again with smart words,and of course the law allows it,and the court allows it for now.
There will be another moral judgement for all concerned later.
Click to expand...

What rubbish! Any chance of a sensible post describing exactly what you feel was wrong with the trial, the verdict and the sentences?
 
Here's whats wrong with the Trial:

1. We copied the UK 1948 Companies Act as we do for a lot of these matters.

2. About 95% of Companies are small and this legislation was for much bigger firms,

3. S60 is about capital maintenance which is ultimately about creditor protection and Banks are exempt from that provision eg Bank of Ireland lent its staff money to buy BoI shares.

4. It is an anachronism that few can explain.

5. The judge figured it was a 'strict liability' offence as in you could NOT use ANY defence. This is actually constitutionally suspect.

6. It is such a useful section that this is the first time it was used.

7. The Regulator - an arm of the state - knew about it.

8. The witness that talked about 'in the normal course of business' worked for Ulster Bank who crashed €12BN of loans. What exactly was the normal course of business in 2007 / 2008? €64BN in losses was it? The basis of what normal course of business was - whatever that is - was most certainly different in 2008 to any other period.

9. Criminal Law is always predictable isn't it. Here is a short quiz:

A You pass a swimming pool where there is a man obviously drowning and you know it, and you pass by. Are you guilty of Murder? Are you guilty of anything? Even littering?

B You break in to a house and rob the place and tie the woman in the house up. You flee. Nobody visits her house for 10 days as she had told everybody she was going on holidays. She starves to death. We find you on CCTV. Are you guilty of Murder?

C You are a constant smoker and as you are passing Dublin Gasworks oblivious as you are on your smart phone. You flick a cigarette end over the wall and kill 200 people but amazingly you don't suffer injury. Are you guilty of Murder?

D You decide to seriously injure your neighbour but tell others that you are only going to give him a hiding. You duly do what you say and apart from being seriously injured you know he won't die. You leave him on a beach. He falls unconscious and the tide comes in and he drowns. Are you guilty of murder?

Answers: A, B and C NO. D Yes
 
WizardDr said:
"The Central Bank has substantially strengthened Ireland's capacity in financial regulation and supervision over the past number of years and introduced sweeping changes in supervisory practices.

It is confident that the shortcomings described by the Court would not recur today."

So there you have a firm kick in the testicular region for Pat Neary.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you're saying this with irony......
 
The quote is from the Central Bank.

The observation on Mr Neary is that they have publicly disavowed him.
 
So, without naming anyone, the Central Bank has said it won't happen again.

Meanwhile, the individual concerned was paid off handsomely, and has a generous pension. Just how much of a few words from the CB do you think will affect him or anyone else, much less be considered a firm kicking? They are saying essentially: trust us now, we've changed, and how we show our displeasure is to say some stern words.

If the CB actually took some real action, they might have some credibility, but actions speak loader than words.

This is beyond a joke: have we learned nothing?
 
Bronte said:
B is manslaughter
Click to expand...

Wizard/Angie;

What I have learned is
1. Central Bank is excellent at saying they are good at their job and will protect us from the Snakes.
2. Central Bank is excellent at doing very little.
3. Central Bank know I can do very little about them.
4. Central Bank love us to go on about {light touch regulation} because they can now claim to be {hard touch}

I believe Light Touch Regulation is what we always needed.
A. With light touch business can proceed without petty shackles.
B. But with Light Touch it means Central Bank MUST wield their power when someone seriously oversteps.

I believe the Anglo boyos have got off under Law but are simply very guilty under any understanding of justice on the responsibilty on any senior Managers Position.

So now I believe.
1. Judge was a nit-picking legal twit.He confuses Law with societal justice,ie a sham.
2. Mr Neary has amnesia.
3. Regulators can hide under a law verdict.
4. The Jury probably did act in law.

Maybe nuff said!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top