Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Committee has recommended a review of the code of corporate law that would allow for fines for people who run failed banks and which was help tackle white collar crime.
In a report assessing the management of the financial crisis up to the end of September 2008 and efforts to stabilise the banking sector since then, the committee referred to a “significant gap” relating to enforcement against individuals.
This contrasts, for example, with the situation in the UK where directors of failed banks have been banned or have faced heavy fines. In that regard also, the whole system of tackling while collar crime has not operated well and there is no law on reckless trading as in other jurisdictions.
The report to the Dáil points out that, five years on from the crisis, there has been no successful prosecution against an individual, though a small number of cases are pending.
Speaking today, committee Chairman John McGuinness said:
Based on the evidence taken by the Committee, it is clear that there was a number of key failings including that the Regulator was not sufficiently aware of the risks that were being taken by bankers whose lending to developers should have forewarned the State of the dangers that were being created by the property bubble.
The report recommends a review and strengthening of the code of corporate law in terms of enforcement against individuals “as a matter of urgency”. It also recommends a review of the system for investigating white collar crime.
Further recommendations include a change in the code of all State bodies to hold all former officials accountable even after they have retired, greater powers for the Central Bank to put firms into administration and fines for banks who do not meet lending and mortgage resolution targets.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Every time someone with power or money causes misery for the rest of us our governments organise investigations, tribunals, committees and so on. We, the victims, pay for these smoke-screens. And yet, barring the very rare exception, we never get justice.
Firstly may I just say, (That’s the new standard deflection answer to difficult questions now )
This government is always an investigations, tribunal or a committees away from doing something.
there is no law its make it up as they go go …the scandals continues
In this case a ‘report’ away. I agree – am fed up reading what will be done (sometime).
White collar crime pays !! Don’t pay your tv licence you get fine and jail .. Rob. The country you get bonuses on top of your normal pay .. Treasure ireland
If you have evidence of a crime you should go to the police
Jail for banker should be at least 10 years or over.
Hey McGuinness.
Don’t forget to include failed corrupt/criminal regulators as well.
Hope this actually goes ahead it’s long overdue, bans and jail terms for these greedy s##mbags…
But I’d be willing to put money on it that this won’t be retrospective!
5 years on…. and they are ‘recommending’ a change in the law… Are these not the people who make laws in the country? Where is the action….?
Smokescreen. Make it look like you are doing something. Don’t do anything.
There will be leprechauns running this hell hole of a country before they send any of their buddies to jail.
Please do not insult leprechauns. We were far from a hell hole when they were here. They left when we turned to greed as the vibration dropped too low for them to exist here.
I do hope you are evolved enough to understand.
Committe recommends…..
So what?
More waste if public money making recommendations akin to turkey’s voting for thanksgiving.
5 years after the crash they come up with some recommendations. That’s useful……
even if they pass this into law kerry, whats the bet that there will be some inclusion of it “not being applicable in retrospective cases” . we will be told that because these people did what they did before this act became law then they cant be brought for prosecution. can you honestly see the government allowing the mates to be hauled before the courts?
The government wouldn’t touch the bond holders with their vote last night. I doubt very much that they’ll prosecute their nearest and dearest aul pals!!
I thought it was supposed to be “Government of the people, for the people, by the people”. Seems to have morphed into “Government of the people for…….the benefit of the rich”.
“Same as it ever was”. David Byrne/Talking Heads.
100′s of millions given to developers who were in turn selling houses to punters on €30,000 a year with 100% mortgages of €500,000. I mean how were the regulators supposed to know? A giant pyramid scheme is how I see it!
there is plenty of evidence of criminality on bankers but the bankers have plenty on the politicians so instead of justice we are going to get what i think is going to happen fitzpatrick and co is a hung jury ,he will walk and his co defendents also .
” In Scotland, everyone did so because banks had to make good on their promises. If a bank ran out of reserves, its owners (stockholders) had to pay the depositors out of their own pockets. Each bank was thus highly motivated to limit the amount of new money it created to what was truly needed. Limiting inflation attenuated deflation as well. In the marketplace ecosystem free from aggression, the poor would be protected from the devastating effects of alternating these two policies.”
“Across the border, the English depositors did not fare so well. In 1841, total losses to Scottish depositors over the preceding 48 years were estimated at 32,000 pounds, while public losses in London were twice that amount for the previous year alone! Although records do not allow a precise correction for differences in population and per capita deposits, English citizens appeared to be exposed to 24 times more risk than the Scots. The English were at the mercy of the central bank, an exclusive monopoly-by-aggression.”
Dr Mary Ruwart, Healing the World in an Age of Aggression, Ch 9
What about failed politicians?
What about failed civil servants?
What about failed central bankers?
The devil will protect his own. The politicians, senior civil servants and watch dog regulator were tame lap dogs who served power and privilege without shame.
Politicians lie with words, bankers lie with numbers and civil servants lie with both words and numbers.
Off with their heads
The review is the first stage, then an assessment of the review, followed by a regulatory impact assessment. Then a heads of proposal will be produced, giving rise to the IBF’s industry consultation paper. This will give raise to a Law Reform Research Paper, then a full Report, followed by consultation, leading to a Green Paper. This will require a 5 year consideration process.
Then in 2080, the White Paper will issue followed in 2100 by a heads of legislation paper.
We have to be careful not to rush this process.
Nobody in this country pays for their crimes, so why should the bankers.
Certainly agree that bankers who participated in reckless lending should be prosecuted however as unpalatable as this may sound there was plenty of money lent during good times which was lent with the best of intentions and was perfectly sound at the time. For whatever reason the money has now gone bad. I wouldn’t like to see a witch hunt towards those who engaged in what appeared to be sound lending in good times. The only losers as it stands would be businesses / individuals if banks were afraid to take a certain element of risk.
Problem here was that there was and is no risk for bankers. Unsustainable but profitable actions were heavily rewarded. Disastrous negligent decision making was also rewarded, but by the taxpayer. A sort of socialism for bankers and the ultra privileged. If the banks are so important to the nation, then we need the captains of banks to resort to the dole if they run our banking ships on to rocks – at very least!
We know all that… Can’t turn back the clock; we all have to learn from the past. Certainly prosecute bankers who engaged in reckless lending. This is entirely separate to the here and now… Businesses / Individuals need credit; banks need to take a certain level of risk otherwise no money would ever be lent.
They keep their rewards when they make good investments – no problem there. In fact if they get million euro bonuses for intelligent investments, that’s their business. But if we the taxpayer have to bail them out for stupid investments, as has been the case – then there is no risk. So no intelligent decision making is needed. I say license the captains of commerce, if they fail, we bail out the banks but not the stupid captains.
I don’t disagree with you but the past is the past. I certainly deal with the here and now. To have a functional banking system banks need to lend and lend on the basis that they take a level of risk. Otherwise not a penny would be lent. As I’ve said there was plenty of deals that made perfect commercial sense and for what ever reason have gone bad. I would not want to see bankers witch hunted for taking risks.
I am talking about the future. When proportionate risk taking becomes reckless trading for escalated bonuses then, the market and capitalism should operate. In the future, the taxpayer must be protected from bankers negligence – €70bil worth of negligence is not to be repeated, certainly not out of my small wage !
Well done enda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4&feature=player_embedded
Bankers are money junkies.
have your say