Category: Regulatory Agencies

Enforcing tax law: Depends on whether you're rich and powerful or a peasant

Last Tuesday Pat Kenny (59 Min) interviewed an official from the Revenue Commissioners on how the organisation intended tracking down those homeowners who were suspected of cheating on their property tax obligations.

The official was very professional. Pat put question after question to him and all were answered without hesitation, without any dithering regarding the law surrounding property tax.

Listeners were left in no doubt whatsoever that unless they obeyed the law to the letter Revenue would track them down and they would pay the price for their sins.

It should be noted however that such clarity, such efficiency, such determination to enforce the law is strictly confined to ordinary citizens.

When Revenue officials are interviewed about the rich and powerful they use a completely language.

We hear about constitutional considerations, about rights, about contracts, about legitimate expectations but most of all we hear about complexity.

The taxation system in Ireland is actually quite simple.

For peasants its: Pay up or suffer immediate consequences.

For the rich and powerful its: We will do our very best to minimise your tax and we will protect you on the rare occasions when you are actually caught stealing from the State.

Former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and current chairman of NAMA, Frank Daly provides a perfect example of how the State treats the rich and powerful and how it treats the peasants.

Here are his views regarding the bogus accounts scandal of some years ago.

On ordinary bank holders (The peasants who broke the law):

Bogus account holders must be held answerable for their actions regardless of any encouragement given by the banks.

They had knowingly concealed earnings from Revenue and must pay for their actions.

On banks and bankers (The rich and powerful):

For reasons of practicality, it had been decided to seek the repayments of DIRT from the banks rather than to attempt to apportion blame.

Aggressively pursuing the banks would have resulted in a stand-off and a lengthy legal battle.

We had to go about this in a pragmatic way. Had we done otherwise, the shutters would have come down.

Irish democratic system is worthless

Disgraced former Labour minister and Rotherham MP Denis MacShane has been jailed for six months after admitting making bogus expense claims amounting to nearly £13,000.

The following mitigating factors were taken into account by the judge.

MacShane pleaded guilty.

He was of previous good character.

The money was paid pack.

The offences were not committed out of greed or personal profit.

MacShane suffered a long period of public humiliation and carried out the offences at a time of turmoil in his personal life which included:

Divorced from his wife.
Death of his daughter.
Death of his mother.
Death of his former partner’s mother.

Yet despite these strong mitigating factors MacShane was still sent to jail.

In Ireland, any one of these factors would probably have seen an Irish politician receive a full pardon, permission to keep the defrauded money plus a bonus and a massive vote increase in any subsequent election.

I say ‘probably’ because Irish politicians are, effectively, permitted to operate outside the law and therefore we never actually witness the application of justice when they defraud the state/taxpayer, as they regularly do.

In functional democracies where the legal/justice system operates independently of the political system we see judges make statements like the judge in MacShane’s case.

There was deliberate, oft repeated and prolonged dishonesty over a period of years involving a flagrant breach of trust and consequent damage to Parliament, with correspondingly reduced confidence in our priceless democratic system and the process by which it is implemented and we are governed.

Note the words: ‘Priceless democratic system’.

Irish politicians can plunder the state’s resources at will because our democratic system is worthless.

The Irish Law Society is, to a large extent, a discredited entity and as such its members should not be trusted

In 2001 solicitor Thomas Byrne, now serving 12 years for theft and fraud, removed over €500,000 from a client’s account without the client’s permission.

The Director General of the Law Society Ken Murphy described this sum as ‘not a huge amount’ and proceeded to defend what Byrne had done (The Pat Kenny Show, 6th minute).

It wasn’t a huge amount, it was made good immediately, there was no client loss; it was down to poor book keeping by Byrne.

To my knowledge, no action was taken against Byrne.

In 2012 postmaster Derek Tierney removed €4,000 from a client’s account without the client’s permission (Irish Independent).

Tierney claimed he took the money to cover shortfalls in the daily cash flow. The full €4,000 was returned, there was no client loss.

The full force of the criminal justice system was brought to bear on Tierney for his crime. He was quickly brought to court, sentenced to four months jail, lost his job and is publicly disgraced.

The judge in the case said Tierney had been in a position of trust and he had breached that trust.

In 2005 solicitor Byrne removed €1.7 million from a client’s account without the client’s permission.

The Director General of the Law Society, Ken Murphy, made the following excuses for Byrne’s actions.

His bookkeeper had died, his records were in a mess, the loss was made up immediately, there was no loss to the client.

On this occasion the Law Society decided to act, presumably because Byrne had moved on from removing ‘small’ half-million sums from his client’s accounts to somewhat larger amounts.

Byrne was not dragged through the public courts as postmaster Derek Tierney was.

Instead he was brought before the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Authority. This ‘court’ is, effectively, a private ‘justice system’ for solicitors and is, effectively, conducted behind closed doors.

Byrne was fined a paltry €15,000 for illegally removing the €1.7 million from a client’s account.

Remember, postmaster Tierney got four months jail and lost his job for illegally removing a mere €4,000.

The Director General of the Law Society, Ken Murphy was asked did he expect Byrne to be struck off for his actions.

There would need to be evidence of dishonesty and theft really before somebody would be likely to be struck off, to lose their livelihood.

Independent of the Disciplinary Authority, the Law Society appointed a forensic accountant to keep an eye on Byrne.

This accountant was required to report to the Law Society on Byrne’s activities every two months.

Apparently, under the ‘watchful’ eye of this forensic accountant Byrne went on to rob and defraud his clients of €54 million.

The Director General of the Law Society is a past master in waffle and the art of doublespeak but neither he nor his fellow solicitors can deny the disgraceful reality:

The Irish Law Society is, to a large extent, a discredited entity and as such its members should not be trusted.

Copy to:
The Irish Law Society

Is the Data Protection Commissioner confused about the law?

In 2012 a whistleblower in the Garda Síochána submitted a report through official channels to the Garda Commissioner alleging serious abuses of the penalty points system.

No action was taken and the whistleblower suffered serious consequences as a result of his action.

Subsequently the whistleblower submitted the same report to Taoiseach Enda Kenny, Minister for Justice, Minister for Transport, Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission, Road Safety Authority, Data Protection Commissioner and several opposition TDs.

The Data Protection Commissioner made no comment and took no action regarding the legality or illegality of the whistleblowers actions.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the actions of the whistleblower were legitimate and legal.

Any other conclusion would suggest that the Data Protection Commissioner was in serious dereliction of his duty at the time.

Recently, a new batch of allegations surrounding the penalty points system was handed over to Fianna Fail TD, John McGuinness who is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

The Garda Commissioner responded immediately to this event by writing to Mr. McGuinness demanding the return of the information.

The Data Protection Commissioner also responded immediately in support of the Garda Commissioner’s demand saying:

(Mr. McGuinness) has a duty to act on alleged breaches of the law.

For that reason, I must support the Garda commissioner’s efforts to retrieve all personal data which was removed from An Garda Síochána without his authorisation.

I rang the Data Protection Commissioner’s office yesterday to ask why Mr. McGuinness had a duty to act on alleged breaches of the law when the Data Protection Commissioner himself did not feel any such need in 2012.

I’ll report on the response I received in the next day or so.

CHC: Update on State's continued failure to properly investigate allegations of white-collar crime

I noted the following statement (dated 20 August 2013) on the Central Bank website today.

The Central Bank’s investigation into Custom House Capital Ltd (in Liquidation) and persons concerned in its management has been on-going since the publication of the Final Report to the High Court by Court Appointed Inspectors dated 19 October 2011.

Following consultation with An Garda Siochána, the Central Bank’s investigation has been deferred pending completion of investigations by An Garda Síochána.

This case involves allegations of massive fraud at Custom House Capital (CHC) which was first uncovered in 2009 by a private company shortly after the so-called Financial Regulator had ‘investigated’ CHC and, effectively, gave it the all clear (See here).

Nearly five years later and we’re still waiting for our so-called law enforcement agencies to finish their ‘investigations’.

As with practically all allegations of white-collar crime in Ireland this case will be ‘investigated’ to hell and back until the entire affair becomes neutralised through history or resolved by other means which usually means those ripped off will stay ripped off and those with allegations of fraud against them will remain free and unaccountable.

DPP not to act against Mick Wallace

On October 8 2012 I submitted a formal complaint against Mick Wallace TD to Cobh Gardai.

The complaint was in response to Wallace’s admission on live radio that he hired a hitman to recover an outstanding debt from a building contracts manager.

I heard nothing more on the matter from Cobh Gardai until I contacted them nearly a year later on 10 September last.

I was informed that my complaint had been passed on to Wexford Gardai two days after submission, presumably because Wallace is based in Wexford.

I received no communications from Wexford Gardai until I phoned the station on October 8 last, exactly one year after I had submitted my complaint.

The investigating officer informed me that my complaint had been submitted to the DPP who directed, in January 2013, that no prosecution should be taken.

I was not informed of this decision.

I requested more details from the investigating officer.

Did you carry out an investigation or did you just submit my complaint to the DPP?

I submitted an investigation.

Did you contact Mick Wallace?

I’m not going to say what I did or didn’t do but I investigated the complaint.

Is there any information at all you can give me regarding your investigation?

No, I’m not going to give you any information.

I find that a bit strange. Is the investigation you carried out totally confidential?

I’m not going to tell you the ins and outs of it. All I will say to you, and you can take whatever you want out of this, is that I carried out the relevant inquiries and submitted a file to the DPP.

The following is my assessment of this case.

It is obvious that neither the Gardai nor the DPP thought it necessary to inform me of what was happening. If I had not made enquiries I would never have known what action had been taken as a result of my complaint.

In common with the many complaints I have submitted over the years against politicians, civil servants and others I did not for a moment expect that charges would actually be brought against Mick Wallace.

My principal motive for submitting such complaints is to highlight the fact that Ireland is a deeply dysfunctional state where certain categories of citizens seem to be virtually untouchable when it comes to law enforcement.

At some point in the distant future when Ireland is a fully accountable democracy the following will be the norm.

Police investigators will be legally required to keep complainants informed of the progress of any investigation.

The DPP will be legally required, without revealing substantial facts, to regularly publish lists of complaints/cases that have been submitted stating whether they are to be prosecuted or rejected.

Is the DPP warning Michael Smith and Village magazine?

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Claire Loftus, has just published her annual report.

In the Foreword she issued the following warning to the media.

I want to take this opportunity to say something generally about the risks of pre-trial publicity interfering with the right of an accused person to a fair trial.

The media and commentators have a high degree of responsibility to ensure that not only do they not commit a contempt of court by publishing or broadcasting prejudicial material but also that such publicity is not the cause of a trial being postponed for a long period, or even indefinitely.

These risks increase as any trial date approaches.

Could it be that her warning is aimed at the editor of Village magazine, Michael Smith, who issued the following challenge to Ms. Loftus and her office in the August/September issue?

Dear Ms. Loftus,

The whole country wants you to prosecute possible offences arising out of the planning and payments tribunals and banking collapses, which have devastated this country and disenfranchised a generation.

Democracy depends on the prosecutability of alleged white-collar crime.

If you do not initiate prosecutions of UniCredit Bank Ireland, John Bowe (formerly of Irish Anglo Bank), Michael Fingleton (formerly of INBS), Michael Lowry TD and allegedly ‘corrupt’ former Monarch Properties executives as a start, Village will itself generate prosecutions in early September.

Yours sincerely,

The Editor and Directors of Village magazine.

The citizens of Ireland owe a debt of gratitude to people like Michael Smith for their courage in challenging the might of a state that has for decades refused to act against the disease of white-collar and political corruption.

Two more complaints against Senator Landy:

As I mentioned in a previous article the Clerk of the Seanad has rejected my complaint regarding bribery claims by Labour Senator Denis Landy on the grounds that I did not make a complaint against a specific member of the Senate.

During my research compiling a new complaint I came across a code of conduct for members of Seanad Eireann on the Standards in Public Office (SIPO) website.

Delighted with this new information I rang SIPO to enquire about the procedure for making a complaint.

Sorry, Mr. Sheridan, we only deal with complaints against office holders. We cannot accept a complaint against an ordinary member of the Dail or Senate.

So why is this code of conduct published on your website?

Oh that’s just to inform citizens that such a code exists but it has nothing to do with us.

So what authority does a citizen submit a complaint to for breach of this code?

The Clerk of the Seanad or Dail.

So here I am again – back at the start of yet another circle.

I have now submitted two complaints to the Clerk of the Seanad specifically against Senator Landy (See full complaints below).

The first complaint is made under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, Section 8 (2) and is centred on the fact that Senator Landy did not report the bribery allegation to the relevant authorities and that he has refused to reveal the identity of the person alleged to have offered the bribe.

The second complaint is made under the Code of Conduct for Members of Seanad Eireann, specifically under sections 1, 2, 3(i) and 3(ii) which states.

Members must interact with authorities involved with public administration and the enforcement of the law in a manner which is consistent with their roles as public representatives and legislators.

Complaints to Clerk of the Seanad.

15 August 2013

For attention of: The Clerk of the Seanad.

This is a formal complaint made under the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, Section 8 (2) regarding a reported incident that occurred within the Houses of the Oireachtas on a date between the 1st and 19 July 2013.

The incident concerns a claim by Labour Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy is reported as saying:

I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government.

According to the report Senator Landy has refused to name the person who approached him but he did describe the person as a political figure.

The incident was first reported in the Sunday Independent on 21 July 2013. I have included the complete report below.

My complaint against Senator Landy is that he has failed to report this incident to the relevant authorities. He has also refused to reveal the identity of the person alleged to have offered the bribe.

I base my complaint on the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 and 2001, Section 8 (2) and specifically on the words “or done a specific act” contained in the legislation.

Senator Landy’s failure to report allegations of a serious crime to the relevant authorities is a specific act of omission.

Senator Landy’s refusal to reveal the identity of the person alleged to have offered the bribe is also a specific act.

Yours Sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

15 August 2013

For attention of: Clerk of the Seanad.

This is a formal complaint against Senator Denis Landy for breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members of Seanad Eireann.

The incident concerns a claim by Labour Senator Denis Landy that he was offered a plush holiday to coincide with a series of votes on the referendum to abolish the Seanad.

Senator Landy is reported as saying:

I was approached by an individual in Leinster House and offered flights and a stay in a top hotel in New York should I go missing during this week.

Senator Landy expressed the opinion that the offer was made in an attempt to defeat the Government.

According to the report Senator Landy has refused to name the person who approached him but he did describe the person as a political figure.

The incident was first reported in the Sunday Independent on 21 July 2013

My complaint against Senator Landy is that he has failed to report this incident to the relevant authorities. He has also refused to reveal the identity of the person alleged to have offered what is, in effect, a bribe.

Senator Landy’s failure to report the alleged crime and his failure to reveal the identity of the person alleged to have offered the bribe are in breach of the following sections of the Code of Conduct for Members of Seanad Eireann and in particular is in breach of Section 3 (ii).

1. Members must, in good faith, strive to maintain the trust placed in them, and exercise the influence gained from their public office to advance the public interest.

2. Members must conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions and spirit of the Code of Conduct and ensure that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their office or the Seanad into disrepute.

3. (i) Members have a particular obligation to behave in a manner which is consistent with the proper performance of the functions of the Office of Member of Seanad Éireann and with the maintenance of confidence in such performance by the general public.

(ii) Members must interact with authorities involved with public administration and the enforcement of the law in a manner which is consistent with their roles as public representatives and legislators.

Yours Sincerely

Anthony Sheridan