High Court Inspector exonerates Jim Flavin

Bronte said:
I see two laws, I see wrong doing by politicians and bankers in particular (people in powerful positions) but I never see any of them going to jail for anything. It never happens, but I do know that plenty of small time debtors have gone to jail in the last year so yes I think there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

If I'm incorrect prove me wrong rather than asking me to prove it the other way round.

In Ireland it seems to me that those in positions of power can subvert planning laws, receive expenses without receipts, hire consultants on amazing salaries, appoint friends and political allies to boards and quangos, run billion euro bodies (FAS) that are completely incompetent, get loans from banks without any paperwork, have regulators dining with bankers and when the **** hits the fan a fall guy is found who rides off into the sunset with a bribe for silence of a lump sum addition to pension none of this is illegal. We have bankers moving money around willy nilly and loaning vast sums of money to developers on a phone call fueling the property bubble and then those same bankers giving outrageous loans to borrowers to purchase houses built on these same land so the borrowers will be mortgaged for life to pay the builders who in turn pay the bank. And very soon now we'll have the banks turning the screws on those same bankers with higher interest rates to pay back NAMA.

We have had two ex taoishigi have bank loans written off when in financial difficulty and I wonder how many current politicians have the same situation currently.

The powerful circle in Ireland of which Flavin is a member are too cosy, be that politicans, bankers, developers, directors & judiciary. It leads to complete corruption. That is what we have in Ireland complete and utter corruption.

Here now in this case the Supreme court has found wrongdoing but once again somehow it's ok because sure it was an error of judgement.

If the Supreme court has found that someone was doing insider dealing, and that is an offense udner the law and the person should get punishment for that.

Sorry this has turned out to be a rant, you can delete it. We now finally have one clear case of white coller crime and once again nothing so it makes me angry.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this. What is most galling in this case for me is not so much that Flavin broke the law (on insider trading and in relation to the farce of a tax scheme he set up), but that he did so with such contempt and arrogance. It seems quite clear to me that there is an echelon in Irish business who assume they can and will get away with all sorts of things. Shipsey's reliance on the same echelon of people for opinions about Flavin is simply beyond belief.

History is littered with powerful people who, when they are called to account, are seemingly 'amazed' that what they were doing was unlawful. Shipsey seems to have been bought in by Flavin's amazement and indeed the opinions of people who rely on the likes of Flavin for their income. The cosy conclusion that it was all an error of judgement is a real kick in the teeth for Ireland as we try to make some positive progress out of the mire we are in.
 
So Bronte and Complainer - your argument is as follows:

All rich business people are corrupt.

Therefore Jim Flavin is corrupt.

Ignore the findings of the High Court Inspector that Jim Flavin adheres to the highest standards of governance. The High Court Inspector is obviously wrong, because we all know that everyone in authority is corrupt.

Everything in America is good.

There was no need for a criminal trial or anything as we all know he was guilty of a criminal offence.

Therefore Jim Flavin should have gone to jail.

Or put it another way, we have civil liberties, e.g. the right to presumed innocenct only for the little guys. If they are big guys, they are so obviously guilty that they don't have any rights.

Everything in America is good, so let's bring back the death penalty while we are at it. But keep it for people earning over €1m a year.
 
Well, actually Brendan, I think the argument is that ignorance of the law is usually no excuse, and it seems odd that it should apply here.
 
Brendan said:
So Bronte and Complainer - your argument is as follows:

All rich business people are corrupt.

Therefore Jim Flavin is corrupt.

Ignore the findings of the High Court Inspector that Jim Flavin adheres to the highest standards of governance. The High Court Inspector is obviously wrong, because we all know that everyone in authority is corrupt.

Everything in America is good.

There was no need for a criminal trial or anything as we all know he was guilty of a criminal offence.

Therefore Jim Flavin should have gone to jail.

Or put it another way, we have civil liberties, e.g. the right to presumed innocenct only for the little guys. If they are big guys, they are so obviously guilty that they don't have any rights.

Everything in America is good, so let's bring back the death penalty while we are at it. But keep it for people earning over €1m a year.
Click to expand...

Boy, you're on form today Brendan. Neither of us said anything nearing this. When you've calmed down, you might want to rewrite your post, but this time, don't leave out the Supreme Court judgement, which ruled that as a matter of law, Flavin did indeed do some insider trading. Does Shipsey get to overrule the Supreme Court?
 
Complainer said:
Boy, you're on form today Brendan. Neither of us said anything nearing this. When you've calmed down, you might want to rewrite your post, but this time, don't leave out the Supreme Court judgement, which ruled that as a matter of law, Flavin did indeed do some insider trading. Does Shipsey get to overrule the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

Bronte
I see two laws, I see wrong doing by politicians and bankers in particular (people in powerful positions) but I never see any of them going to jail for anything. It never happens, but I do know that plenty of small time debtors have gone to jail in the last year so yes I think there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.
Click to expand...

Complainer that is exactly what you said


If this happened in the USA, he would be coming to the end of his time in jail about now.
Click to expand...

I presume that you meant Flavin by "he".

So you are sending someone to jail without being charged, never mind being found guilty of any crime?

The Supreme Court found, in a civil case between Fyffes and DCC that there was insider trading. This was a civil case and not a criminal case.
 
Brendan said:
There is no difference between the two rulings.

Both accept that there was insider trading.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the motivation behind it.

The High Court Inspector did.

Read again a barrister's explanation on Irish Lawyer.com. He explains the technical nature of the offence.

http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/19/jim-flavin-gets-some-justice.html

Brendan
Click to expand...

I'm not a legal eagle, but here are my thoughts on the matter and bear in mind I am acting as devil's advocate here.

Motivation and provocation are certainly taken into consideration when considering criminal offences, particularly serious ones.

A man kills another man - has he committed murder?

If he's attacked by the other man with a deady weapon and is in fear of his life he has acted in self defense - it is not considered murder.

If there is an assault where there is intent to harm but not kill, and if there is no premeditation in relation to the fatal blow, then it may be considered manslughter, not murder.

If there is premeditation, malice aforethought and an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder, then murder has been committed.

Now there are many shades and degrees of offence depending on the particular circumstance, the degree of provocation, whether drink or drugs were taken, the mental state of the perpetrator and victim, the competence of each and their ages, but these three above give a reasonably broad overview.

Apply this to Flavin's case and it seems to me that motivation is a moot point. Shades of grey don't arise when the case is clear cut and an offense has been committed. In the present case we can neither prove nor disprove his motivation and suggesting he didn't know what he was doing - a guy whose strict adherence to company practice was made much of in the report - is, frankly, disengenuous.

He either knew what he was doing or he didn't.

He cannot be both competent and clueless.

That equation seems totally out of balance.

ONQ.
 
Brendan said:
There is no difference between the two rulings.

Both accept that there was insider trading.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the motivation behind it.

The High Court Inspector did.

Read again a barrister's explanation on Irish Lawyer.com. He explains the technical nature of the offence.

http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/19/jim-flavin-gets-some-justice.html

Brendan
Click to expand...

I'm not a legal eagle, but here are my thoughts on the matter and bear in mind I am acting as devil's advocate here.

Motivation and provocation are certainly taken into consideration when considering criminal offences, particularly serious ones.

A man kills another man - has he committed murder?

If he's attacked by the other man with a deady weapon and is in fear of his life he has acted in self defense - it is not considered murder.

If there is an assault where there is intent to harm but not kill, and if there is no premeditation in relation to the fatal blow, then it may be considered manslughter, not murder.

If there is premeditation, malice aforethought and an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder, then murder has been committed.

Now there are many shades and degrees of offence depending on the particular circumstance, the degree of provocation, whether drink or drugs were taken, the mental state of the perpetrator and victim, the competence of each and their ages, but these three above give a reasonably broad overview.

Apply this to Flavin's case and it seems to me that motivation is a moot point. Shades of grey don't arise when the case is clear cut and an offense has been committed. In the present case we can neither prove nor disprove his motivation and suggesting he didn't know what he was doing - a guy whose strict adherence to company practice was made much of in the report - is, frankly, disengenuous.

He either knew what he was doing or he didn't.

He cannot be both competent and clueless.

That equation seems totally out of balance.

ONQ.
 
He cannot be both competent and clueless.
Click to expand...
The same presumably applies to the High Court judge who found that it was not insider trading? She judged that it was not insider trading. The Supreme Court judges found that it was.

Jim Flavin did not have the 5 Supreme Court judges to consult with before doing the transaction.

It is a grey area. It is not comparable to murder where the Gardai find me with a smoking gun and a dead man on the ground.

I know it takes a lot of work, but read through the conclusions of the High Court Inspector's report. It is a more systematic setting out of the arguments. Or check out the summary on http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/19/jim-flavin-gets-some-justice.html (Irish-Lawyer.com)

In case you won't even do that, here is a quote from that

The Supreme Court decision was a more than normally "technical" decision, a consideration which by and in itself should have restrained the nature of the commentary upon it. Briefly, the Supreme Court's decision was that the definition of "price-sensitive information" in the [broken link removed] was such that insider-dealing had occurred. This was so even though, at the time of the dealing, all parties (even, it seems, the eventual complainants) agreed, some after taking legal advice, that such dealing was not involved (an opinion that the High Court shared).
Several commentators did not shrink from stating as a fact that the Supreme Court had found Mr Flavin guilty of the criminal offence of insider-trading, proving thereby that they had not looked at the judgments to which they were so anxious to attribute an excessive significance.
Click to expand...
 
Actually Irish-Lawyer updates the story here in the light of the Irish Times editorial
http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/20/never-mind-the-facts.html (<br /> Never mind the facts)

It deals more eloquently with the criminal vs. civil issues
 
Brendan said:
Actually Irish-Lawyer updates the story here in the light of the Irish Times editorial
http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/20/never-mind-the-facts.html (<br /> Never mind the facts)

It deals more eloquently with the criminal vs. civil issues
Click to expand...

It is difficult to read to read this piece from irish-lawyer as a completely unbiased piece, given it is written in relation to a report by a law library buddy. The basic fact remains that Flavin had insider information and used it to transact in the market at a time when the law said he shouldn't. No amount of technical analysis will change that fact. I don't believe it is a grey area. The nuances of whether he knew the law, or knew he was breaking it, or had other reasons for doing what he did, or whether the purchasers in the transaction felt duped etc. etc. are not really relevant.

I note the piece in irish-lawyer does not make any reference to the farce of a tax scheme that Flavin put together. If that wasn't a fraud on the taxpayer I don't know what was. How many other frauds like this have been put together by Irish companies?
 
roland said:
It is difficult to read to read this piece from irish-lawyer as a completely unbiased piece, given it is written in relation to a report by a law library buddy.
Click to expand...

Right, I see your point. So the only people who can comment on this issue are people without any legal training. That's fair enough.

Did the Shipsey report refer to the tax scheme? I don't think it did, but I am open to correction.

As I said in an earlier post, the Revenue will have investigated this transaction by now and must have decided it was not a fraud or else the company would have appeared in the tax defaulters list.

It is funny, when big multinational companies relocate to Ireland to take advantage of our low taxes, they are welcomed with open arms. In fact, they are given grants to locate here. But when an Irish person or company arranges their affairs to take advantage of lower tax rate abroad, it's characterized as fraud or unpatriotic.
 
Brendan said:
The same presumably applies to the High Court judge who found that it was not insider trading? She judged that it was not insider trading. The Supreme Court judges found that it was.

Jim Flavin did not have the 5 Supreme Court judges to consult with before doing the transaction.

It is a grey area. It is not comparable to murder where the Gardai find me with a smoking gun and a dead man on the ground.

I know it takes a lot of work, but read through the conclusions of the High Court Inspector's report. It is a more systematic setting out of the arguments. Or check out the summary on http://www.irish-lawyer.com/journal/2010/1/19/jim-flavin-gets-some-justice.html (Irish-Lawyer.com)

In case you won't even do that, here is a quote from that
Click to expand...


Brendan,

You know me too well. :)

Let's keep this on ground I'm comfortable with and keep it simple.

How does what a High Court Judge or an inspector end up undermining the decision of the Supreme Court?

ONQ.
 
http://www.tribune.ie/news/editoria...l-clifford-if-you-occupy-the-dizzy-heights-o/

The paragon of corporate Ireland, with 40 years of experience in trading shares, had satisfied himself that he was not in possession of price sensitive information when he traded. That his company managed to reap €80m in profit as a result of his ignorance was, we must conclude, just, well, lucky.



Technically, the judgements of Shipsey and those of five Supreme Court judges can be reconciled. On a common sense basis, they cannot. But common sense, as Judge Fennelly pointed out, has largely been absent in this case.



Shipsey concluded that his findings reflected well on corporate Ireland "at a time when Ireland Inc is taking a beating internationally from a perception of low standards in high corporate places".



While Shipsey was reporting in good faith, he is completely wrong about how the conclusion of this affair will be received. Outside Ireland, common sense is a valued commodity. Anybody abroad looking at the whole affair would conclude that it has more than bananas in common with some other alleged republics.
Click to expand...
 
Is this Bill Shipsey the same one who urged the courts to protect Liam Carroll for the "public interest", and nothing to do with poor Liam himself?

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/09/07/dutch-courage/

Urging the court to appoint Ray Jackson examiner, Bill Shipsey SC said the interests of the wider community had never been “so much to the fore” in any application for court protection although there was no one arguing the public interest in this case except the companies themselves.
Click to expand...
Also, I'm still curious to know how 1 man has to power to overrule the Supreme Court's judgement. What am I missing here?
 
I never said rich people are corrupt nor do I think it.

But I do think that in Ireland and Dublin in particular amongst a certain set of people there is a mindset that you are all in a club together and one protects the other.

As another poster said can we go back to the basics (I can't read the report it's more than 800 pages long)

The Supreme Court has ruled there was insider trading.

The High Court Inspector says that it was not because Flaving acted in honesty or ignorance.

To me the High Court Inspector is overruling the Supreme court judgement. How can this be?

Also if the report in the Tribune is correct we are to believe that a man dealing in shares for 40 years, who according to the Supreme court was insider dealing, did a share sale whereby he made massive profits but because he didn't do it on purpose the High Court Inspector says he didn't do anything wrong. That smells rotten to me.

For the sake of transparency does anyone commenting on here know Flavin?
 
roland said:
. Shipsey's reliance on the same echelon of people for opinions about Flavin is simply beyond belief.

Shipsey seems to have been bought in by Flavin's amazement and indeed the opinions of people who rely on the likes of Flavin for their income. .
Click to expand...

Is this true? That the people Shipsey consulted with are linked to Flavin, are business colleagues of Flavin and rely on Flaving for some of their income?
 
(I can't read the report it's more than 800 pages long)

The Supreme Court has ruled there was insider trading.

The High Court Inspector says that it was not because Flaving acted in honesty or ignorance.

To me the High Court Inspector is overruling the Supreme court judgement. How can this be?
Click to expand...

Did you read Irish Lawyer .com which summarises the issues very well. Of course, the Inspector did not overrule the Supreme Court.

I don't know Jim Flavin apart from watching his record over the years. As I have said earlier, I was a shareholder in both Fyffes and DCC at the time.
 
I don't think that anyone questions the integrity or competence of the Director of Corporate Enforcement?

He chose to appoint an Inspector.

If we combine all the reasons mentioned for his unsuitablity and apply them to other people, the only person who would qualify as an inspector would be someone like Joe Higgins.

The inspector can't be a barrister because all barristers have defended some clients who should not have been defended.
He can't have any contacts in business because someone he knows will know someone who knows Jim Flavin.

The reality, of course, is that the Inspector has to be a top class Senior Counsel who knows commercial law. No one at the time of the appointment, questioned the integrity or suitability of Bill Shipsey. But because he did not produce a "hang em and flog em" finding, they are now unhappy.
 
Yes I read the opinion of O'Rourke (whom I'm sure is a very emminent qualified person). But the only way one could really understand anything is by reading the report itself.

He's mad into the word technically. Well it seems perfectaly clear to me that the Supreme Court had ruled there was insider trading and I don't care how technically or not technically it is, it is a ruling of insider trading by the highest court in the land but the High Court Inspector seems to be implying that because it was not done intentionally than there is no offence. This is the bit I get lost on.

Incidentally I don't understand how a report on a single transaction needs to run to 800+ pages. Designed so us mere plebs cannot figure it out no doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top