Quinn Insurance in Administration

[AQMP]

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.

That'll be a hell of a lot of gardens weeded and graffiti power hosed off a lot of walls!

[Hardy]

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.

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

It's hard to disagree with the judge's obvious belief that you can't have one arm of the state encouraging people to undertake a particular enterprise and another arm of the state jailing them for it. Neary literally gave the lads their "get out of jail" card.

By the way, what is the basis for the consensus that Neary can't be prosecuted? It seems to me there's a prima facie case of conspiracy to break the law. Or is there a crime of dereliction of duty? I can't imagine a more open-and-shut case if there is. Apart from that, what's to stop a civil action against him – and why not join the whole Anglo crew, the Quinns, the Central Bank and the mandarins in Finance in it as well?

[deiseach]

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

Since when did 'mitigation' mean 'no punishment at all'? Because that is what is happening here. As AQMP alludes to, there is no amount of community service these guys can perform that will compensate society for their criminality. Where is the deterrent?

[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.

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

It's hard to disagree with the judge's obvious belief that you can't have one arm of the state encouraging people to undertake a particular enterprise and another arm of the state jailing them for it. Neary literally gave the lads their "get out of jail" card.

By the way, what is the basis for the consensus that Neary can't be prosecuted? It seems to me there's a prima facie case of conspiracy to break the law. Or is there a crime of dereliction of duty? I can't imagine a more open-and-shut case if there is. Apart from that, what's to stop a civil action against him – and why not join the whole Anglo crew, the Quinns, the Central Bank and the mandarins in Finance in it as well?

This is crazy Hardy. On the one hand you are arguing for no sentence for these men because the Financial Regulator's knowledge of the events somehow mitigates their law breaking, in the eyes of the law. i.e He has the authority to decide whether or not something is a crime (which he obviously doesn't) thus making it somewhat lesser of a crime.

But on the other you want to prosecute the Financial Regulator presumably for his contribution to such a crime. Either he is omnipotent and it is not a crime or he isn't omnipotent, in which case everyone guilty of the crime deserves to be held responsible for their actions.

[Hardy]

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

Since when did 'mitigation' mean 'no punishment at all'? Because that is what is happening here. As AQMP alludes to, there is no amount of community service these guys can perform that will compensate society for their criminality. Where is the deterrent?

I'm simply pointing out the separation between the decision on guilt and the choice of sentence. The judge could have jailed them regardless and NOBODY would have raised an objection - which is probably the consideration that should give us pause and make us reflect on lynch mobs. Would it really have been justice for the state to deprive someone of their liberty for an action they were "led into" by the same state? I don't have any sympathy for these lads and I wouldn't have lost a wink of sleep had they got five years, but would I have been right?

[AZOffaly]

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.

Just like Creggan hurlers

[Hardy]

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.

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

It's hard to disagree with the judge's obvious belief that you can't have one arm of the state encouraging people to undertake a particular enterprise and another arm of the state jailing them for it. Neary literally gave the lads their "get out of jail" card.

By the way, what is the basis for the consensus that Neary can't be prosecuted? It seems to me there's a prima facie case of conspiracy to break the law. Or is there a crime of dereliction of duty? I can't imagine a more open-and-shut case if there is. Apart from that, what's to stop a civil action against him – and why not join the whole Anglo crew, the Quinns, the Central Bank and the mandarins in Finance in it as well?

This is crazy Hardy. On the one hand you are arguing for no sentence for these men because the Financial Regulator's knowledge of the events somehow mitigates their law breaking, in the eyes of the law. i.e He has the authority to decide whether or not something is a crime (which he obviously doesn't) thus making it somewhat lesser of a crime.

But on the other you want to prosecute the Financial Regulator presumably for his contribution to such a crime. Either he is omnipotent and it is not a crime or he isn't omnipotent, in which case everyone guilty of the crime deserves to be held responsible for their actions.

You're probably right about "crazy". It's hard to pick out black and white in this whole grey mist of chicanery. I'm not really "arguing for no sentence". It's more that I see the judge's point and, as I said to Deiseach, while nobody can avoid the full rigour of the law for being led into wrongdoing by an individual or organisation, I think it's different if the state leads them into it and then tries to jail them for it. It's probably that they should be in jail, but the state screwed up and made it impossible to jail them.

[Hereiam]

Where is the out cry from the general public down south. People don't seem to be bothered that these people are getting off scot free.

[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.

That's not disagreeing, Muppet. As Guy said, they were found guilty - i.e. they broke the law with not just a nod and a wink, as you say, but the clear approval, even encouragement, of the primary authority that regulates these matters. Ignorance of the law, or having received consent to break the law is not a defence, but it can be a mitigating consideration in sentencing.

It's hard to disagree with the judge's obvious belief that you can't have one arm of the state encouraging people to undertake a particular enterprise and another arm of the state jailing them for it. Neary literally gave the lads their "get out of jail" card.

By the way, what is the basis for the consensus that Neary can't be prosecuted? It seems to me there's a prima facie case of conspiracy to break the law. Or is there a crime of dereliction of duty? I can't imagine a more open-and-shut case if there is. Apart from that, what's to stop a civil action against him – and why not join the whole Anglo crew, the Quinns, the Central Bank and the mandarins in Finance in it as well?

This is crazy Hardy. On the one hand you are arguing for no sentence for these men because the Financial Regulator's knowledge of the events somehow mitigates their law breaking, in the eyes of the law. i.e He has the authority to decide whether or not something is a crime (which he obviously doesn't) thus making it somewhat lesser of a crime.

But on the other you want to prosecute the Financial Regulator presumably for his contribution to such a crime. Either he is omnipotent and it is not a crime or he isn't omnipotent, in which case everyone guilty of the crime deserves to be held responsible for their actions.

You're probably right about "crazy". It's hard to pick out black and white in this whole grey mist of chicanery. I'm not really "arguing for no sentence". It's more that I see the judge's point and, as I said to Deiseach, while nobody can avoid the full rigour of the law for being led into wrongdoing by an individual or organisation, I think it's different if the state leads them into it and then tries to jail them for it. It's probably that they should be in jail, but the state screwed up and made it impossible to jail them.

Just one more point. You mentioned early that the State led them into the action. I may be wrong but I don't think that was the case. They certainly let the State know what they were doing, but I don't think the State directed them of pushed them or instructed them in any way.

[Hardy]

I'm quoting the judge (as far as I remember).

[deiseach]

I'm simply pointing out the separation between the decision on guilt and the choice of sentence. The judge could have jailed them regardless and NOBODY would have raised an objection - which is probably the consideration that should give us pause and make us reflect on lynch mobs. Would it really have been justice for the state to deprive someone of their liberty for an action they were "led into" by the same state? I don't have any sympathy for these lads and I wouldn't have lost a wink of sleep had they got five years, but would I have been right?

I think you would have been right. What we have here is a judge trotting out the mantra that ignorance of the law is no excuse then proceeding to give chapter and verse on why, in this case, ignorance of the law is an excuse. In my opinion it's a quite disgraceful decision, and saying as much does not equate to lynch law.

[Hardy]

Fair enough. It's a matter of opinion as to whether the decision is disgraceful but, from the commentary I've seen, his separation of judgement from sentencing in applying the "ignorance of the law" principle is at least allowable, if not indeed how it's meant to be done. You can't allow ignorance of the law as a defence, but you can consider it in your selection of punishment.

It is a disgrace that the best the state has done so far, after six years, is to rap the knuckles of a pair of relatively lowly foot soldiers, bring charges against the godfather that wouldn't stick, allow his consiglieri to skip the jurisdiction, not bother to apply for his extradition, promote some of the mandarins who should at least be questioned about collusion and pension off others.

I gather there are other charges pending against Seanie. I can't remember what they are, but his defence of "I wasn't involved day to day at that stage" seems to hold water in the courts.

[muppet]

These laws are supposed to protect the market from abuse.

These men were qualified to hold senior position in a bank. The papers refer to 'obscure company law' but if I knew share support schemes were illegal I would say top bankers knew.

They were found guilty and the reality is that the market was abused by this transaction. The fact that a lot of people knew about it, to me is only relevant in the sense that there should be more prosecutions. It doesn't lessen the crime.

I am still disgusted.

[mick999]

IBRC told of alleged hidden Quinn assets worth €500m:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/financial-services/ibrc-told-of-alleged-hidden-quinn-assets-worth-500m-1.1815111
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/quinn-familys-gold-informants-claim-have-details-of-substantial-assets-not-disclosed-30316997.html

[AQMP]

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/manufacturing/ex-quinn-executives-to-buy-two-key-units-of-manufacturing-group-1.1859153

Former Quinn executives in buyout of part of Aventas

A consortium of former senior executives in the Quinn Group and a group of Northwest businessmen have teamed up with Endless LLP, a UK private equity house, to buy two key units of the manufacturing arm of the business, now called the Aventas Group.  The deal, which is close to being closed, will see the consortium called the Quinn Business Retention Company (QBRC) and Endless acquire its packaging and construction industry supplies (CIS) divisions for an undisclosed sum. The two businesses employ 650 people in the Derrylin / Ballyconnell area of the border.

Aventas will continue to operate the former Quinn Group's glass business as well as its plastics and radiators divisions.
A new name for the two acquired businesses has not been decided but Liam McCaffrey, former chief executive of the Quinn Group, will lead the new business.  Eight former senior executives of the Quinn Group are involved in the acquisition including former group development director Kevin Lunney, former group finance director Dara O'Reilly, and former radiator division chief executive Denis Doogan.

The three local businessmen leading the consortium, called the Quinn Business Retention Company (QBRC), are John McCartin, a Fine Gael councillor who leads Newtowngore Engineering Ltd, John "Bosco" O'Hagan, managing director of theSpecialist Joinery Group, and Ernie Fisher, former managing director of Fisher Engineering Ltd. The consortium has said that group founder Sean Quinn, the former billionaire, is not involved in its bid.

Endless LLP has an investment portfolio with a combined turnover of € 1 billion with 7000 employees. It has 30 investments including Crown, the branded painter maker and distributor and St Neots Packaging, a paperboard and fastfoods manufacturing company among others. In a statement QBRC said it was "pleased to announce that it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Aventas Manufacturing Group regarding the potential acquisition of Quinn Packaging Limited and the Construction Industry Supply businesses of Aventas."  "These businesses are based mainly in the Derrylin, Co Fermanagh/Ballyconnell, Co Cavan region and as such are very important to the local economy. We look forward to working with Aventas both during due diligence and moving forward following completion."  "We appreciate the support that we have received from many quarters in our endeavours since we disclosed our interest in acquiring these businesses. In particular, we would like to acknowledge the support from the local community and our partners, Endless LLP, who we believe have the expertise to assist us in developing the business. We trust that we can repay their confidence by successfully concluding this transaction."  "We are delighted with the prospect of returning to these businesses and continuing the tradition of growth and development established by the Quinn Group and its workforce over the last four decades," it added.