Why are they afraid to name the Golden Circle?

Duke of Marmalade

Registered User
Messages
4,388
First, BC says he doesn't want to name the 10 because that would prejudice a trial.

Then he says it is because he doesn't know them.

Now we are told that because they are shareholders of Anglo they are bound by banking confidentiality to their customers.

Now this last is the most disingenuous of all, what happened to "whistleblowing" ala money laundering? And anyway weren't the banks forced, rightly, to disclose their offshore tax cheats?

If this was all legal and above board, and Anglo's lawyers say it was, why aren't at least some of the 10 coming out? There must be sumfin' rotten here if they prefer to let this "whodunnit?" develop an enormous head of steam which will surely explode eventually.
 
A group, as in a collective proper noun, was apparently named in the Dáil today. The person using the name seemed to be referring to a document.
 
Even with what little we're seeing with Sean FitsP's loans, the "golden circle", IL&Ps window dressing activities, I find it hard to believe that some laws have not been broken.

How long will it be before we see the Director of Corporate Enforcement act?
I don't think world financial markets will tolerate "tribunal timeframes" on this one.
 
The government, or at least the Fianna Fail/PD part of it has been in power to long.Many Fianna Fail voters were almost swayed due to this fact in the last election.However in the last week they could see bad times were coming(sooner in fact than the people they were about to elect) and thought that the were better to stick with the devil they knew.
It has become abundently clear that they backed the wrong horse.The government has been reacing to events as they happen rather than trying to put plans in place for what is coming down the line in 6 months time.
This thinking has been partly guided by the fact that many of their long time supporters are know caught up in the crumbling house of cards that is Anglo.The rabbit in the headlights look on the Finance ministers face at each revelation is enough to realise how long they have left.Each time they paint over one crack a new bigger one arrives and as it all unravels there is one of the elite friends of the party on some board or authority resigning with enough money as to make them comfortable enough to stay silent.Like the boy with his finger in the whole in the dam they will soon run out of fingers.Whether the other crowd will do any better is questionable but at least they are not stained by the relationships brought about by being in power for most of the last 25 years.
 
However in the last week they could see bad times were coming... and thought that the were better to stick with the devil they knew.It has become abundently clear that they backed the wrong horse.

I'm glad F.Fail are in power now, if they'd been in opposition now, F Gael/Labour would have been left with all the muck, and FF's claim to better handling of the economy has gone out the window.
At least with the next election we should be rid of FF for hopefully at least 8 to 10 years.

I also cannot understand why they are so afraid of the bankers & this circle. Why did Lenihan say that Fitzpatrick's 87 million loan was 'disappointing'. The guy looks like he's 5 foot nothing. And why did the regulator get a pay-off ? And then there's Fas...
The truth will out. I just wish it would alll come out at the same time, and not in this current drip drip fashion. If the politicians asked some economic journalists for assistance in reading some of the auditors reports, maybe things would move faster.
Lenihan : George, does a 7 billion inter-bank transfer matter ?
George Lee: Eh, yes it does minister.
Lenihan : But it's not in the chapter about loans, & we're only interested in loans. And they didn't summarise it in the main bullet points either.
George Lee: That's true, but whenever you see a line of zeros, before the decimal point, with a positive integer in front....
Lenihan : But George, it's not jumping out at me.
..

sorry, rant over....
 
if they are so worried that if they name someone that it may affect a future prosecution, why wouldnt one of the 10 pay a journalist to leak the names and then cry foul?

These shares were bought by individuals who got loans (300m) to buy them. Can they be forced to use their personal wealth to pay back these loans? in other words why is the money lost?
 
It's not because they are shareholders; it's because they are customers of the bank.

I think what he meant was that apparently shareholders of banks are not supposed to have details of customers and since the Government is shareholder, it could not have access to the names. (This is what some Minister was sprouting off on the radio this morning). I never heard of that law myself.

My question then becomes this. When the Government were doing due dilligence on Anglo, are they saying they looked at the large risk exposures but didn't see who the exposures were to? They must have had access to the names at some stage

The whole thing stinks.
 
The Minister was Demot Ahern and the law he quoted was the Central Bank Act of 1942.

Desperation hangs thick in the air.

Sooner or later they're going to have to send in Charlie Bird to ask the hard questions.
 
These shares were bought by individuals who got loans (300m) to buy them. Can they be forced to use their personal wealth to pay back these loans? in other words why is the money lost?

They were non-recourse loans. 75% of the loan was secured on the shares which are now worthless. The other 25% was supposed to be secured on personal assets but last I heard, there was a legal problem with the loan agreement and so the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on with regard to the 25%. Careless mistake or something more sinister? You choose.
 
If it can be proved that they have done nothing illegal - then they won't be named. If it is illegal then they can be named.
 
Its gone beyond the question of legality. As taxpayers, if we are to lose €300 million on one transaction, we are entitled to know everything about it. How it was structured, who organised it, who were the borrowers, what was the legal advice received, was the regulator mis-lead, why wasn't the loan agreement water tight, what price were the shares bought at etc etc etc. There are plenty of questions that need to be answered whether they broke the law or not. We will know about it if one of their developer customers goes bust owning the bank a couple of hundred million. They won't be hiding behind confidentiality in that case. This transaction is no different.
 
As a customer of Anglo Irish Bank as a depositor and a borrower I do not want any shareholder (i.e. my nosey neighbour!) knowing my business. One of the fundamental principals of banking is that your business is confidential.

If I am one of the golden 10 and I have done nothing wrong why should my private banking business be debated publically?
 
As a customer of Anglo Irish Bank as a depositor and a borrower I do not want any shareholder (i.e. my nosey neighbour!) knowing my business. One of the fundamental principals of banking is that your business is confidential.

If I am one of the golden 10 and I have done nothing wrong why should my private banking business be debated publically?

Because simply put there are more important things at stake here such as the credibility of the Irish Financial system (whats left of it!). If they have done nothing wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. Look, they were offered a one way bet on shares. They couldn't lose. Everyone would have jumped at the chance. Unfortuantly for them, it is now €300 million of taxpayers money that has been lost. We have a right to know EVERYTHING about how that money was lost. I have no problem waiting for all the investigations to end and a report issued instead of having trial by media but I do expect them to be named at some stage.
 
This is developing a right head of steam. The anonymity is starting to backfire on the 10 with even minister DA saying on MI that he wants them "outed", yep that's what he said. If they had come out early doors people would be much more circumspect for legal and other reasons but now it seems to be open season across all parties against the 10.

EK must be very confident there are no FG bigwigs in there. Maybe it will be a massive anti-climax, just a bunch of faceless partyless golden circlers, but I don't think so.
 
They were non-recourse loans. 75% of the loan was secured on the shares which are now worthless. The other 25% was supposed to be secured on personal assets but last I heard, there was a legal problem with the loan agreement and so the bank doesn't have a leg to stand on with regard to the 25%. Careless mistake or something more sinister? You choose.


If there was a legal problem with the shareholder agreement and the bank has to write off €300m in loans due to their error then there has to be a VERY good case for shareholders to sue the bank for their error / omissions and their consequent losses. I'm only surprised that lawyers have not yet advertised for shareholders who would like to join a class action. Maybe it will start.
 
EK must be very confident there are no FG bigwigs in there. Maybe it will be a massive anti-climax, just a bunch of faceless partyless golden circlers, but I don't think so.

I actually do think it will be an anti-climax. It will be the usual names as they were all big customers of Anglo. The only problem with FF is the Galway tent and the opinion that people have of it. If thats the worst that is revealed, its not too bad. FF can't really go any lower in the polls!

One possible problem could be Cowan admitting he knew about the problem with Sean Quinns stake through CFD's. Question then arises, what did he know about the solution? Beggers belief that the Regulator and the Department Of Finance considered Quinns stake to extremely dangerous with regard to the future of Anglo Irish Bank and yet did not go through Anglo's solution to the problem with a fine tooth comb.
 
Back
Top