Quinn Insurance in Administration

[haranguerer]

More good news from the family that keeps on giving

This black hole was created by the regulator

Sure it was, sure it was 

That may seem like a head in the sand statement when you look at the sindo headlines, but look a bit deeper.

The regulator went in, stopped Quinn insurance from doing business, said this was the way to go, and that no extra money would be needed to honour claims. (At the time and since, Quinn and others said there were much better ways to resolve it, the business at that point was profitable)

Now, 2 years later, they say they need a billion. And they can make such an unbelievable statement wiothout fear of repercussion because theres a big bogeyman they can point to for everything. At the very least (even if we were to assume their action over Quinns was completely correct), its incredible inepetitude that they were out by £1BILLION in their calculations of what they needed - its their job to work things like this out, and regardless of Quinns wrongdoing, they should be accountable for it. But no, the headlines say 'Quinn', everyone rolls their eyes and says 'That ****!' and switches off.

[deiseach]

A settlement should have been reached on this ages ago. The money that's being wasted on courts and solicitors is crazy and regardless of what happened to Craig Whyte and David Murray getting into the mess (This doesn't release them from blame), what HMRC have done to get out of it is worse.

That'd work just as well in another context. And it would be just as wrong.

[supersarsfields]

Do they have illegal debts aswell?

[deiseach]

Do they have illegal debts aswell?

They've been just as dishonest in their use of money as Seán Quinn has been

(Edit: and the cost to the taxpayer will be a lot less)

[supersarsfields]

That's not what I asked? Are the depts they owe illegal? Did the revenue act illegally in the application of they depts?

[deiseach]

That's not what I asked? Are the depts they owe illegal? Did the revenue act illegally in the application of they depts?

No. But a settlement can still be reached with them if the will was there. And the will shouldn't be there for bandits of any stripe.

[supersarsfields]

Why would there be a will, considering the tax office hadn't acted illegally in their implementation of the debt?

[deiseach]

Why would there be a will, considering the tax office hadn't acted illegally in their implementation of the debt?

There shouldn't be. And there shouldn't be the will to leave Seán Quinn off his debt. Had he made money off his 'illegal debt' he wouldn't be giving it back, would he? As I said, no consideration for bandits

[supersarsfields]

Firstly it's not Sean Quinns dept. It's his kids. And if Anglo forced additional dept onto the group to maintain it's share prices then I don't agree these depts should be enforceable. and the actions that Anglo have taken since then has reinforced this opinion.

[deiseach]

Firstly it's not Sean Quinns dept. It's his kids.

I wonder did you see the same fine distinction David Drumm passed his assets to this wife.

And if Anglo forced additional dept onto the group to maintain it's share prices then I don't agree these depts should be enforceable. and the actions that Anglo have taken since then has reinforced this opinion.

That remains to be determined and any settlement will only encourage future wrong-doers into thinking that they'll get a settlement as well. Let's have an end to cosy deals.

[supersarsfields]

Firstly it's not Sean Quinns dept. It's his kids.

I wonder did you see the same fine distinction David Drumm passed his assets to this wife.

Considering Sean Quinn didn't "pass" his assets over and that they were always in the Kids name from day one, I'd say yeah there is a difference!

And if Anglo forced additional dept onto the group to maintain it's share prices then I don't agree these depts should be enforceable. and the actions that Anglo have taken since then has reinforced this opinion.

That remains to be determined and any settlement will only encourage future wrong-doers into thinking that they'll get a settlement as well. Let's have an end to cosy deals.

So you would be happier letting Financial organisations get away with illegality?

[deiseach]

Considering Sean Quinn didn't "pass" his assets over and that they were always in the Kids name from day one, I'd say yeah there is a difference!

Again, that has to be determined. There's ample prima facie evidence that the Quinns have being passing assets around to hide their wealth away from their creditors. They're claiming it was the beastly Anglo wot made them do it, but funnily enough I'm not willing to take their word for it.

So you would be happier letting Financial organisations get away with illegality?

If a deal is made, the degree of the illegality will never be determined. I don't know how you think illegality will be established if there's a deal. So no, I don't want to see people getting away with illegality.

[supersarsfields]

Considering Sean Quinn didn't "pass" his assets over and that they were always in the Kids name from day one, I'd say yeah there is a difference!

Again, that has to be determined. There's ample prima facie evidence that the Quinns have being passing assets around to hide their wealth away from their creditors. They're claiming it was the beastly Anglo wot made them do it, but funnily enough I'm not willing to take their word for it.

But the assets were in the children's name from day one as i mentioned earlier. The current asset roundabout is to prevent Anglo getting control over assets they are clauiming anglo have no right to.

So you would be happier letting Financial organisations get away with illegality?

If a deal is made, the degree of the illegality will never be determined. I don't know how you think illegality will be established if there's a deal. So no, I don't want to see people getting away with illegality.

That's a fair enough take on it deiseach, and I hope it goes that way as well. But I can imagine the uproar on here if it goes the full way and instead of having a dept of 2.8 billion outstanding the tax payers could be looking at a dept to the Quinns for something similar.

[deiseach]

That's a fair enough take on it deiseach, and I hope it goes that way as well. But I can imagine the uproar on here if it goes the full way and instead of having a dept of 2.8 billion outstanding the tax payers could be looking at a dept to the Quinns for something similar.

That's a novel take on things. How does that follow from what has gone on?

[supersarsfields]

If the debts are written of due to their illegality it means the take over of the Group and the foreign properties were illegal. They would surrender any right over these assets and will be liable for all costs inccurred through the process including loss of business. This is what the Children's court cases are aiming for.