Icelandic Bankers jailed
- Thread starter dewdrop
- Start date
M
mercman
Guest
And why not ?? The scope should be extended to Deception, Misrepresentation, Extortion, and Fraud including the other attributes these reckless persons invoked the public with.
But we do have a lame duck regulation system in this country. Personally, I have always maintained that unless and until heads roll in this country, we will never pick ourselves up and move away from the negativity that has enveloped the people of Ireland.
While I believe many bankers should be jailed in Ireland the reality is that not only will they not, but we had many of them retired with large lump sums + pensions. Furthermore, some of our politicians can continue to be crooked and need not fear being called to answer.
Fair play to the Iclandic people for jailing corrupt and uncareful bankers.
Fair play to the Iclandic people for jailing corrupt and uncareful bankers.
Don't believe everything you read! These two were convicted of fraud, plain and simple, nothing more exciting than that. These two would have been convicted in the same manner regardless of what happened to the bank, because they were just common criminals.
This kind of thing often happens when a company collapses because the people committing the fraud are no longer able to keep it hidden.
Always remember that papers are commercial enterprises too and that sensational headlines are the best way to sell papers....
This kind of thing often happens when a company collapses because the people committing the fraud are no longer able to keep it hidden.
Always remember that papers are commercial enterprises too and that sensational headlines are the best way to sell papers....
Seanie is accused of providing false information to the auditors with regard to directors' loans which is an offence under the Company Acts.
On the face of it, it would seem an open and shut case - it is hard to see what defence he could put up against the available evidence.
On the face of it, it would seem an open and shut case - it is hard to see what defence he could put up against the available evidence.
First of all, we have not actually seen the evidence, so we can't comment on it's quality....
Secondly, he is a fully qualified accountant, with public practice experience so I'd be surprised if he blatantly provided false information in such a clear cut manner as is suggested.
Thirdly I doubt that as the CEO of a bank, he would have had day to day contact with the audit seniors or audit manager doing the audit, so there is a chance that the information was via a third party....
Knowing something and proving it in a court of law are two very different things, so while I'd be disappointed if he does not go to jail, I would not be too surprised if he managed to get out of with a lessor punishment.
I am not a lawyer, but I am not a fool either. I do not believe that the vast amounts of money "loaned" to people who could barely handle their telephone bills were done so in a bona fide sense. There was reckless borrowing allowed by the banks. They must have known that the bubble was about to bust as they are not fools either. I am not convinced that everything they did was legal and I believe with a little scratching at the surface at what they did will expose the real truth of what went on.
Let's face it, if somebody is caught shoplifting to feed a child the person faces a jail sentence. The banks because of their unrelenting greed loaned money like it was confetti. You dont have to be a trained lawer in any country to know that what was done was reckless and illegal. When I see bankers jailed (managers, assistant managers, the lot of those who participated in what can be called a contrived greedy scam I will once again believe in Ireland). People were diddled out of their money. How many of us have homes that are now worth less than half the value paid? You dont have to be an artist to draw conclusions here.
Now that the Government has an element of control on the banks is it not time to legislate as to how extraordinary bonuses are paid. Bonuses were effectively paid out on how much was lent and the banks paid their employees on notional profits and on loans that were supposedly performing loans. There were huge bonuses paid out on loans that did not perform in reality and nobody had to repay their bonuses when reality set in. There has to be a an independent way of doing this and not let banks control this. There should be some system where this is done over a rolling 10 year period which would take account of losses as well as profits. I do not fully accept that you cannot find good people to run a bank if we do not pay basic rates over €500,000. We did not get great ones when we paid 4 and 5 million. There are plenty of people who would be quite capable of doing it for 500,000 or less. There was no big rush to take on the geniuses that have departed the banking scene. The crowd at the top of the banking sector like to put it across that there would be no applicants unless these fantasy salaries are kept in place
So under what law would charge them??? And who would you charge, the bank manager, the advisor, the teller, members of the credit committee perhaps.....
And even when it comes to it, one could argue that the property valuer is the real culprit since he is the one that was claiming to be the market expert and should have known that the market was way overheated and as such should have warned the others that the property was way over valued...
The reality is that in a bubble everyone seems to get carried along and anyone trying to raise a red flag gets knocked over in the stampede!
Lets follow Leper's logic:
- in 2007 I see a house I like advertised by an estate agent
- Based on my then income I get Bank approval for a mortgage
- The Bank get an independent valuation
- I get a surveyors report
- I employ a Solicitor
- The house is now valued at 60% of the 2007 value
So based on Leper's logic the following should be jailed:
- the estate agent should have known that the market was a bubble
- the Bank Manager, the Bank lending committee etc must have known
- the independent valuer must surely have known
- my surveyor must have known
- my Solicitor must have known
- and whilst I am in a jailing mind, what about the original owner of the house ( an Economist) he surely must have known
As Bertie said, no one told me it was a bubble. So based on my one house I think I can justify jailing some 10 individuals. After all how was I supposed to know. I won't be unreasonable by suggesting that the Bank clerks or the legal assistants I dealt with should also face jail.
On the basis of my one house I think that we can easily come to jailing some 7,500 people (allowing for many individuals being involved in multiple sales). At least the legal profession and the Prison Officers Assoc will be delighted.
- in 2007 I see a house I like advertised by an estate agent
- Based on my then income I get Bank approval for a mortgage
- The Bank get an independent valuation
- I get a surveyors report
- I employ a Solicitor
- The house is now valued at 60% of the 2007 value
So based on Leper's logic the following should be jailed:
- the estate agent should have known that the market was a bubble
- the Bank Manager, the Bank lending committee etc must have known
- the independent valuer must surely have known
- my surveyor must have known
- my Solicitor must have known
- and whilst I am in a jailing mind, what about the original owner of the house ( an Economist) he surely must have known
As Bertie said, no one told me it was a bubble. So based on my one house I think I can justify jailing some 10 individuals. After all how was I supposed to know. I won't be unreasonable by suggesting that the Bank clerks or the legal assistants I dealt with should also face jail.
On the basis of my one house I think that we can easily come to jailing some 7,500 people (allowing for many individuals being involved in multiple sales). At least the legal profession and the Prison Officers Assoc will be delighted.
Let's keep the issue to Bankers. The like of estate agents, solicitors etc are a side issue in this and if necessary let these be jailed also if some law can be found that they have broken. But, the bankers were over greedy and behaved irresponsibly (to say the least) setting off a chain reaction which cost many good people lots of money etc. I dont believe all the bankers acted within the law and where proven should be made anwser for their misdeeds.
M
mercman
Guest
There might be some merits on the basis of your description. The Banks fulfilled a requirement and broke their own rules in doing so. In fact what about the circumstances where they refused to lend to honorable people but chose to lend to the high risk category. In fairness to the bankers, I have as yet to hear any stories of where anybody was forced to take a loan. In cases like this they were simply doing their jobs.
Better still, what about the Bankers that enticed persons into making investments and told them pure lies and spoof. Deception and misrepresentation springs to mind.
They should go to jail, simple as that.
Better still, what about the Bankers that enticed persons into making investments and told them pure lies and spoof. Deception and misrepresentation springs to mind.
They should go to jail, simple as that.
Leper,
So sticking only with Bankers ( though that seems very selective) in the case of lending arrangements (whether commercial or residential) what laws were broken? What illegality happened?
Fortunately or unfortunately, being greedy is not illegal. Neither is an inability to predict the future. In fact, incompetence is not illegal.
One does not have to go back to long to when Banks (or Bankers) were vilified for their "conservative" lending practices. Now some want the same Bankers jailed for not being conservative enough.
If bankers were to be villified (or even jailed) for excessive lending, what responsibility does the borrower have. In my example above (I have seen a house I like, suitable for my growing family) should the Bank Manager have refused my loan application? At the time what would my reaction have been? Would I have been happy with such a decision? Would I have gone to another Bank that might have said "Yes"?
20/20 hindsight is far more prevalent now than it was in the early naughties.
Despite the above, I do think that there appear to be evidence of illegality in certain high profile cases (share support arrangements, failure to disclose information as required by the Companies Act etc).
So sticking only with Bankers ( though that seems very selective) in the case of lending arrangements (whether commercial or residential) what laws were broken? What illegality happened?
Fortunately or unfortunately, being greedy is not illegal. Neither is an inability to predict the future. In fact, incompetence is not illegal.
One does not have to go back to long to when Banks (or Bankers) were vilified for their "conservative" lending practices. Now some want the same Bankers jailed for not being conservative enough.
If bankers were to be villified (or even jailed) for excessive lending, what responsibility does the borrower have. In my example above (I have seen a house I like, suitable for my growing family) should the Bank Manager have refused my loan application? At the time what would my reaction have been? Would I have been happy with such a decision? Would I have gone to another Bank that might have said "Yes"?
20/20 hindsight is far more prevalent now than it was in the early naughties.
Despite the above, I do think that there appear to be evidence of illegality in certain high profile cases (share support arrangements, failure to disclose information as required by the Companies Act etc).
Leper,
So sticking only with Bankers ( though that seems very selective) in the case of lending arrangements (whether commercial or residential) what laws were broken? What illegality happened?
Fortunately or unfortunately, being greedy is not illegal. Neither is an inability to predict the future. In fact, incompetence is not illegal.
One does not have to go back to long to when Banks (or Bankers) were vilified for their "conservative" lending practices. Now some want the same Bankers jailed for not being conservative enough.
If bankers were to be villified (or even jailed) for excessive lending, what responsibility does the borrower have. In my example above (I have seen a house I like, suitable for my growing family) should the Bank Manager have refused my loan application? At the time what would my reaction have been? Would I have been happy with such a decision? Would I have gone to another Bank that might have said "Yes"?
20/20 hindsight is far more prevalent now than it was in the early naughtiest.
So sticking only with Bankers ( though that seems very selective) in the case of lending arrangements (whether commercial or residential) what laws were broken? What illegality happened?
Fortunately or unfortunately, being greedy is not illegal. Neither is an inability to predict the future. In fact, incompetence is not illegal.
One does not have to go back to long to when Banks (or Bankers) were vilified for their "conservative" lending practices. Now some want the same Bankers jailed for not being conservative enough.
If bankers were to be villified (or even jailed) for excessive lending, what responsibility does the borrower have. In my example above (I have seen a house I like, suitable for my growing family) should the Bank Manager have refused my loan application? At the time what would my reaction have been? Would I have been happy with such a decision? Would I have gone to another Bank that might have said "Yes"?
20/20 hindsight is far more prevalent now than it was in the early naughtiest.
Thank you Conan. I am not a lawyer as I pointed out earlier. So let's say the Bankers did not behave in any way underhand and let's not prosecute them. Then you must say they acted responsibly and should bear no responsibility at all. So, I am wrong. Thanks to all the Bankers and I am sorry if I offended any of them.