Quinn Insurance in Administration

[theskull1]

Exactly, so why would you think other people wouldn't be of the same opinion as you?

This quote of yours in relation to a "local buy out" after Kevin Lagan received a death threat on the day of his wifes funeral. Sometimes it's what you don't say. Just feels like mission accomplished to me for those with a vested interested in the business/area

Fingers crossed this happens.

[supersarsfields]

FFS, are you for real?

And just in case you missed it,

Death threats at any stage are a scummy act.

[theskull1]

In the media savvy world we live in, all I hear is the soundbite and not the sentiment.

[supersarsfields]

In other words you've formed an opinion based on nothing because it fits in with the view you want to hold and are happy to throw it about. At least we've gotten to the bottom of that.

[give her dixie]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/mcateer-and-whelan-spared-jail-in-anglo-case-1.1777520


McAteer and Whelan spared jail in Anglo case


Judge says it would be unjust to jail men over unlawful loans to buy shares in bank


Two former directors of Anglo Irish Bank have been given the probation act for providing unlawful financial assistance to 10 businessmen in July 2008.

Judge Martin Nolan said it would be unjust to jail William McAteer and Pat Whelan given "a State agency had led them into error and illegality".

The two men are to be assessed for suitability for community service and will be back in court on July 31st.

They will be barred from acting as directors for five years. Both men showed little emotion as they stood in the dock but appeared to be relieved on hearing they would not serve a custodial sentence.

The sentence follows a 90-minute sentencing hearing this morning in which the prosecution outlined the case against Mr Whelan (52) and Mr McAteer (63) and barristers for the accused made pleas of mitigation on their behalf.

On April 17th, a jury found McAteer, a former director of finance, and former head of Irish lending Whelan guilty on 10 charges each of breaching Section 60 of the Companies Act 1963 by lending money to investors to buy shares in Anglo for a share support scheme.

The jury acquitted them on six further charges each of lending money for the same purpose to members of former billionaire businessman Sean Quinn's family. The two men could face a maximum of five years in prison.

Their co-accused, former Anglo chairman Sean FitzPatrick, was found not guilty on all 16 counts. The three men had denied all charges.

The trial centred on a deal to unwind businessman Sean Quinn's holding in Anglo. The court had heard that by July 2008 Mr Quinn's contracts for difference (CFDs) – investment products based on share price – were equivalent to more than 28 per cent of the bank's shares.

This was a serious concern for the bank as it was feared if the CFDs were unwound in an uncontrolled manner it would have a negative effect on the bank's share price.

A deal was devised which involved providing loans to 10 of the bank's customers, known as the Maple 10, to buy just over 1 per cent each of the shares underlying the CFDs with six members of the Quinn family buying 15 per cent of the shares.

The Maple 10 borrowed €45 million each while the Quinns borrowed €169 million. The deal was executed on July 14th, 2008.

Brendan Grehan SC, for Whelan, said today his client "didn't for one moment think he was involving himself in something that was unlawful, something that would find himself before a court on indictment".

He said it was "crystal clear" Whelan never sought personal gain from the deal and had acted under direction from his chief executive, "full square in the belief" that the bank's board, compliance department, legal advisor and the Financial Regulator were behind the transaction.

[muppet]

What a spectacular cop out.

They were unanimously found guilty by a jury of a crime.

I am truly ashamed of our legal system at this stage.

[FermGael]

So ignorance is now a justifiable legal defence.
Cowboys ted, cowboys.

Am I wrong in summarising that basically the judge blamed the financial regulator?

[Tubberman]

Am I right in saying the DPP can appeal the lenience of the sentence?
Also are there any charges pending against the regulator - I'm really not up to speed on it I'm afraid

[gerrykeegan]

Am I right in saying the DPP can appeal the lenience of the sentence?
Also are there any charges pending against the regulator - I'm really not up to speed on it I'm afraid

The boys were prosecuted under breaches of Company Law. Neary was a public servant, he was asleep at the wheel. They can do nothing to him as I understand it. Can't even take his big fat pension. The DPP could appeal I suppose. Not sure they would have the stomach for it.

[Rossfan]

So ignorance is now a justifiable legal defence.
Cowboys ted, cowboys.

THe well heeled loking after their own again. Wonder what golf club do they all belong to?

[guy crouchback]

So ignorance is now a justifiable legal defence.
Cowboys ted, cowboys.

Am I wrong in summarising that basically the judge blamed the financial regulator?

in fairness the judge was clear in his summing up to the jury the ignorance of the law could not be used as a defence. the reason for the stress on this point was that from the evidence it seemed clear that the 2 accused were at all times acting with the green light from the regulator.

now i would be the first person calling for those who broke the law and contributed to the ruination of this country be held to account and jailed, but in this case i think the judge was right.

at every turn they sought advice on what they were doing and went to the very top to get the OK for their actions. if you cant trust the financial regulator himself, in person, the top dog sitting in front of you, then what can you do. they broke the law so were found guilty but consideration has to be given to the direct and clear advice they got from the state.

the villain of this piece is the regulator.

[AQMP]

It'll be interesting to see what service these two boyos can provide to the community to atone for this.

[johnneycool]

So ignorance is now a justifiable legal defence.
Cowboys ted, cowboys.

Am I wrong in summarising that basically the judge blamed the financial regulator?

in fairness the judge was clear in his summing up to the jury the ignorance of the law could not be used as a defence. the reason for the stress on this point was that from the evidence it seemed clear that the 2 accused were at all times acting with the green light from the regulator.

now i would be the first person calling for those who broke the law and contributed to the ruination of this country be held to account and jailed, but in this case i think the judge was right.

at every turn they sought advice on what they were doing and went to the very top to get the OK for their actions. if you cant trust the financial regulator himself, in person, the top dog sitting in front of you, then what can you do. they broke the law so were found guilty but consideration has to be given to the direct and clear advice they got from the state.

the villain of this piece is the regulator.

And he's already sailed off into the sunset, untouchable??

Brilliant bit of stuff there, its doesn't get any more brazen than that and the Irish tax payers will shrug their shoulders and move on picking up the tab for these hoors.

[muppet]

So ignorance is now a justifiable legal defence.
Cowboys ted, cowboys.

Am I wrong in summarising that basically the judge blamed the financial regulator?

in fairness the judge was clear in his summing up to the jury the ignorance of the law could not be used as a defence. the reason for the stress on this point was that from the evidence it seemed clear that the 2 accused were at all times acting with the green light from the regulator.

now i would be the first person calling for those who broke the law and contributed to the ruination of this country be held to account and jailed, but in this case i think the judge was right.

at every turn they sought advice on what they were doing and went to the very top to get the OK for their actions. if you cant trust the financial regulator himself, in person, the top dog sitting in front of you, then what can you do. they broke the law so were found guilty but consideration has to be given to the direct and clear advice they got from the state.

the villain of this piece is the regulator.

I disagree, breaking the law with a nod and a wink from the Regulator, is still breaking the law.

[Rossfan]

It'll be interesting to see what service these two boyos can provide to the community to atone for this.

Giving the Irish Taxpayers €64 Bn would do nicely.