I think what is so frustrating is the lack of extensive forensic accounting into certain individuals to ascertain where monies have gone. If there are red flags he/she should be prevented from declaring bankruptcy.
Do you have any idea of what such an investigation cost? Speaking as someone who actually worked on a few such investigations in the 1980s, I can tell you that you'd be very hard pushed to find anyone who will do them for less than say 50 to 75 Euros per hour in todays terms... Legal fees, expert witness fees and so on pile up and before you know it, whatever assets remain have been consumed by the investigation!
And when it comes to the actual investigation, knowing what you believe happened and finding sufficient evidence to prove it before a court are to very different things. Oh you'll find lots of people willing to whisper in your ear, but ask them to sign an affidavit and they'll head for the exit - .
And then there is the issue of acting in the best interest of the creditors: are you really acting in their best interests by using up whatever assets remain in an investigation that might or might not yield results as opposed to simply paying out what is available and drawing a line under it? Most creditors will opt for the pay out.
The best one can do is spend a few hours reviewing bank statements and any other documents that you can find for say the last 18 months and if nothing obvious shows up, move on...
I guess what Kerrigan is getting at is that a gift to a bankrupted person seems like a sneaky approach. If the bankrupted person has access to such gifts, shouldn't they used to be able to pay off their debtors..
The 'gift' is the allowing the father to live in the same house again. If the father has access to this gift, it should really be going to the debtors. Why doesn't the father kindly accept the gift, rent out the very fancy house, use the incoming rent to rent a modest 3-bed for himself, and refund the difference to his debtors?What gift are you talking about, there has been no gift to anyone. A son in law as is his right purchased a property previouilsy owned by his bankrupt father in law, he didn't purchase it from the father in law, but from the UK receiver (or his agent in Ireland).
I don't misunderstand it at all. I understand well how it works, and I'm pointing out a big problem with how it works. It would indeed be great for society if he goes back to being a productive member of society and starts hiring people again, but does he really need a mansion to do this? Or could he do this from a modest 3-bed?You seem to misunderstand bankruptcy, if they subsequently become wealthy, inherit or are gifted or win the lotto whatever, they have no legal or financial obligation to go back and pay creditors. If a person has done their best and goes bankrupt well the best thing for society is that that person goes back to being a productive member of society and starts hiring people again.
You are over-simplifying here. There is indeed a legal process around dealing with derilict buildings, and it is a slow, painful process. The banks are dealing with these shell buildings, and the Flemings monstrosity has been sold to someone who apparently is going to redevelop it. I'll believe it when I see it.Not in relation to the building you mentioned but to shell buildings in general left after the boom, what are the Corporation doing about those, why isn't a law passed that unkept buildings have to be taken down or sorted out by the owners (ie the banks) and if your point is that these buildings are in general monstrosities, well contact the planning offices and their experts who allowed anything to go up, many very badly built, ugly and downright dangerous (Priory Hall). What is amazing to me is that the same sorry mess could happen again tomorrow because nothing has changed.
What gift are you talking about, there has been no gift to anyone. A son in law as is his right purchased a property previouilsy owned by his bankrupt father in law, he didn't purchase it from the father in law, but from the UK receiver (or his agent in Ireland).
You seem to misunderstand bankruptcy, if they subsequently become wealthy, inherit or are gifted or win the lotto whatever, they have no legal or financial obligation to go back and pay creditors. If a person has done their best and goes bankrupt well the best thing for society is that that person goes back to being a productive member of society and starts hiring people again.
Not referring to the Fleming case, but any developer who comes back to Ireland and seems to start again, having assets, a new company, having transferred assets etc to relations, well that is a fault of regulators and government in allowing it. But it is also entirely possible that though the good years, clever people in business transfer, as is their right, profits/assets to spouses just in case their might be a rainy day. One is allowed after all make a profit.
Not in relation to the building you mentioned but to shell buildings in general left after the boom, what are the Corporation doing about those, why isn't a law passed that unkept buildings have to be taken down or sorted out by the owners (ie the banks) and if your point is that these buildings are in general monstrosities, well contact the planning offices and their experts who allowed anything to go up, many very badly built, ugly and downright dangerous (Priory Hall). What is amazing to me is that the same sorry mess could happen again tomorrow because nothing has changed.
The 'gift' is the allowing the father to live in the same house again. If the father has access to this gift, it should really be going to the debtors. Why doesn't the father kindly accept the gift, rent out the very fancy house, use the incoming rent to rent a modest 3-bed for himself, and refund the difference to his debtors?
.
You are over-simplifying here. There is indeed a legal process around dealing with derilict buildings, and it is a slow, painful process.
Creditors should always have access to future windfall gains, for ever.
. Debtors may have to take more care when they take out loans.
.
It's all relative. Pick the nearest 3-bed rental to the mansion. Look at the price differential. The difference between the rental price for the mansion and the rental for the 3-bed should go to the creditors.How could you rent a very fancy house in somewhere remote and get any kind of decent rent. Dublin or Cork city will get you a decent rent for an expensive house, not a town in Country Cork. But let's say he got rent, now he'd be a landlord and all that entails, he'd be paying tax, prsi and the new social charge off the rent, having to pay household charge and NPPR, which are not tax deductable, and you think after all that a family man would have money left over to pay rent on say a modest 3 bed house and also have money to pay creditors. Nothing against you Complainer but that's a crazy idea. Do you know how hard it is to be a landlord with all the costs that have been heaped on recently.
I don't have a problem with him living in a fancy house. I have a problem with him living in a fancy house while his unpaid creditors are left hanging out there. He can live in the Aras for all I care, once he pays his debts. If he hasn't paid his debts, he should be living in modest circumstances until he does pay them.I'm not sure if I'm getting this wrong, but you really seem to resent the fact he's living in a fancy house, Irish begrudgery perhaps, apologies in advance if I've misunderstood you. A question you don't have to answer, are you living near where the unfinished eyesore he built in Dublin is, and has it devalued property in your area?
I believe that if they have the means to live in a large mansion, via whatever source or ingenious device his advisors come up with, those means should go to his creditors first.Just to clarify I'm in no way defending Fleming, just curious as to your angle. I've plenty to say about developers, most certainly about Fleming, but we cannot talk about it on here for fear of libel.
In relation to bankruptcy I take it you don't believe in bankruptcy and people starting again, I mean bankruptcy where someone loses everything and cannot pay their creditors. Do you believe that people should have to pay back creditors for the rest of their lives if they go bankrupt?
It's all relative. Pick the nearest 3-bed rental to the mansion. Look at the price differential. The difference between the rental price for the mansion and the rental for the 3-bed should go to the creditors.
.
I'm sure it is not beyond the creativity of our entrepreneurial classes to come up with an effective solution to the tax issue, just like they've driven coaches and horses through lots of other tax laws.You're completely ignoring the fact that he'll pay tax and costs on the rent.
Technically, you're correct. Morally, you're wrong.In any case he doesn't have creditors anymore. He owes nobody anything.
I'm sure it is not beyond the creativity of our entrepreneurial classes to come up with an effective solution to the tax issue, just like they've driven coaches and horses through lots of other tax laws.
Technically, you're correct. Morally, you're wrong.
His creditors have effectively been stolen from, .