Moriarty

Finally published today.

Confirms that Lowry got £147,000 from Dennis O'Brien for awarding Esat that mibile contract. His companies also donated £50k to FG, and he personally doanted £20k to them

Ben Dunne paid Lowry to get the rents on Telecom Eirean land upped.

Tribunal calls Lowry "disgraceful and insidious"

Lowry reckons they're making it up. O'Brien thinks they're out to get him (and he's using his Newstalk as proganda here) and Ben Dunne is using the "I was on drugs and mentally unstable at the time" excuse. He just called Moriarty a liar on liveline. We'll see how that plays out

How many polls has Lowry topped since this broke?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...reaking17.html

http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie/asp/...0&RecordID=399

Lowry sickens me. He's like a walking archetype of the politicians which result from the failings of democracy.

Will he be arrested before or after he's re-elected again by the clueless majority in Tipp?

I honestly don't have a major problem with O'Brien on this. While what he did was of course wrong, it was how business was done in Ireland (still is, only even sneakier), and there was no way around it. He should be punished, with an enormouse fine, but I put 90% of the blame on Lowry. He should be put in jail as an example.

Come off it DOB bribes a politician in the process earns himself millions but its all Lowry's fault. There is logic in there somewhere. The fact that it was the way business was done is zero defence. It just means that there is more scumbags out there to be caught. Not a reason to be let off.
Hopefully a stretch for all involved.

If you didn't bribe someone back then, you went out of business or didn't get your planning permission. There's no ifs ands or buts about that, it was shameful but it was the ONLY way to survive in business. Yes it would've been great if O'Brien had been the one to rail against it, but you could say that for every single business in Ireland at the time. IMHO the politicians that took the bribes had a duty of care to us and thus a much larger responsibility. They're supposed to police the nation, not sell it down the river.

Completely agree with Adam here. We have to look at what is more wrong and take it from there.

I would sooner see Lowry locked up than O'Brien fined.

O'Brien was a businessman doing his job. Lowry was a Minister AND public representative and it appears he was engaged in illegal and grossly inappropriate acts.

You can't make fish of one and fowl of another. They were both equally complicit. When a businessman bribes a politician, with "campaign donations" or money funnelled through a Credit Suisse bank account, it subverts the institutions of the state. It's not so long back that Dan Boyle was making noises about how we should have a specific crime of economic treason. Lowry and O'Brien would fit the bill perfectly for that charge. I'm not holding my breath waiting for prosecutions, though - Moriarty didn't make specific findings of corruption, which would have made it easier for the DPP to act. I'm not even holding my breath for a Dail motion of censure against Lowry. Too many skeletons in the Rainbow closet for that to go down well, and Phil Hogan didn't emerge smelling of roses in the report either. Plus ça change etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

You can't make fish of one and fowl of another. They were both equally complicit. When a businessman bribes a politician, with "campaign donations" or money funnelled through a Credit Suisse bank account, it subverts the institutions of the state. It's not so long back that Dan Boyle was making noises about how we should have a specific crime of economic treason. Lowry and O'Brien would fit the bill perfectly for that charge. I'm not holding my breath waiting for prosecutions, though - Moriarty didn't make specific findings of corruption, which would have made it easier for the DPP to act. I'm not even holding my breath for a Dail motion of censure against Lowry. Too many skeletons in the Rainbow closet for that to go down well, and Phil Hogan didn't emerge smelling of roses in the report either. Plus ça change etc etc.

---

That's true but I think the point that I was trying to make is that in I would prefer to see Lowry moreso than O'Brien sorted out for now.
For Lowry to resign is more of a pressing need than prosecutions for both right now. They will come in time. Let's take our time and knock the bottles from the wall one by one.
FFs mouthing off at FG for this is laughable though. Billy Kelleher on VB was brilliant. Godbless Delusion!

I don't have any problem with O'Brien being punished, but I want Lowry in jail. I'd also like to see the people that voted for him in jail. But none of the above will happen anyway.

A corrupt politician needs someone to do the corrupting. Using the logic above, the problem with unsuccessful bidders in such circumstances was they didn't pay enough. A politician takes the majority blame - they are supposed to be there to serve the people. However, it'd be much more even than 90-10 imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

FFs mouthing off at FG for this is laughable though. Billy Kelleher on VB was brilliant. Godbless Delusion!

---

Dara Calleary was on Newstalk just now calling for a ban on corporate donations. Never mind the last 14 years in power, lead for the majority of it by Mr Dig Out himself, a ban on corporate donations was part of the last programme of Government, and it wasn't the feckin Greens that were dragging their heals on it! Now they're toxic to the business community, and their Galway tent buddies have to keep their money off shore, it's easy for them to take the moral high ground now.

what was the point of this?
Surly a Garda investigation would of been more worthwhile, this report can't be used to prosecute anyone. Everyone who gave evidence will have to give it again to the Guards.
Complete waste of our money and it'l come to nothing

The tribunal was necessary because actually proving corruption beyond reasonable doubt is virtually impossible.

The reason it cost so much is because of the constant obstruction and delaying tactics of the likes of O'Brien and Lowry throughout.

However, the report has been sent to the Gardaí and the DPP.

Tribunals are hideously expensive and a better way needs to be found urgently, but they do server to lend some accountability and insight into the workings of such things.

And for the record I think Lowry should be shot as a traitor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

Tribunals are hideously expensive and a better way needs to be found urgently, but they do server to lend some accountability and insight into the workings of such things.

---

Some do claim that they've earned the state money, due to the monies uncovered and taxes/ penalties paid. However, CAB could presumably followed the money too.

We need a referendum to correct the Abbeylara subcommittee court case loss, so that Oireachtas committee's can do the inquries.

Actually yeah, I saw a thread about that on p.ie since I posted that. Elaine Bryne claimed a half billion profit overall!

http://www.politics.ie/tribunals/156...fit-state.html

That's pleasant news Mr A.
Does Elaine also count in the direct tax income garnered from the fees paid to the legal teams (i.e. if the féckers pay proper tax)?

Without being scientific, would it be a fair comment that most of the general public are at least appreciative of the finished report by Moriarty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Without being scientific, would it be a fair comment that most of the general public are at least appreciative of the finished report by Moriarty?

---

Not so sure about that - there's been a few things that have gone wrong, and a few changes of tact by that Tribunal that at least give those on the wrong end a case to argue (as they've been doing). Personally, I'm slightly uncomfortable with not allowing some legal costs to those being investigated (not necessarily the full amount but enough to keep a team in place).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Not so sure about that - there's been a few things that have gone wrong, and a few changes of tact by that Tribunal that at least give those on the wrong end a case to argue (as they've been doing).

---

In a court case, the defendant has a right to deny, to argue and has a right to lie even under oath. But it all usually ends when the court makes its decision.
A tribunal final report does not end the process of denial.
My point was referring to public perception of the tribunal's report, that in the main the report has been favourably received, that the Judge's findings are proven beyond reasonable doubt, that prosecutorial perfection is not expected?
Are courts with juries the only way in which someone may be recognized as a criminal? Is there no common definition that might apply, based on facts of course?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

My point was referring to public perception of the tribunal's report, that in the main the report has been favourably received, that the Judge's findings are proven beyond reasonable doubt, that prosecutorial perfection is not expected?

---

I think the burden of proof is less than that for tribunals.

In order to come to an opinion of criminal liability, do we need a Court of Law standards of burden of proof in relation to the facts of the fraud, in order to be satisfied? Perhaps the facts do not meet the legal standard of the courts.
Still, we the general public, do have a lot of information - enough information to form our own opinion of the main protagonists

I listened carefully to O'Brien on rte this morning, my first impression is that he protests way too much, way too eager.
It was interesting to listen carefully to his account of the Mansfield transaction and contrast his account with the account in Moriarity report, part 1 chapter 6

Lowry is claiming he had only a 10% interest in the property which he paid 10% for.
But the property was registered in Lowry's name alone, the document claiming he was only a 10% owner was not registered with the deeds as a caution or what ever archaic term is used.
Moriarty found that those partnership files were falsified

page 187
In closing this short chapter, it must be observed that the version of events tendered in evidence in 2001 by Mr. Lowry and Mr. Aidan Phelan, and the documentation submitted in support of that version, was wholly at odds with documentation that came to light in 2009, and the evidence then available to the Tribunal, primarily represented by the belated attendance of Mr. Vaughan. What became apparent at that late stage was a contemplated sale of the Mansfield and subsequently acquired Cheadle properties in 1999, on terms which were inconsistent with a partnership agreement on the footing of Mr. Lowry holding a 10% interest, and were consistent only with an intention that the substantial net proceeds would accrue for Mr. Lowry’s sole benefit. What also emerged initially in 2002, and latterly in 2009, was the falsification of Mr. Vaughan’s files as produced to the Tribunal by him in 2001, consistent only with an intention that its contents should support the version of ownership with which the Tribunal was furnished in 2001, namely that of Mr. Lowry holding the registered title of the Mansfield property as a nominee on behalf of a partnership in which he had a mere 10% interest.

The burden of proof for criminal trials and convictions has to be higher than that accepted in tribunals, civil actions, etc. That’s not to suggest that the money trail uncovered by Moriarty, and other evidence of wrongdoing, would not stand up to scrutiny in a criminal action. With the DPP examining it, hopefully he’ll see enough detail to initiate prosecutions.

In the meantime, I’m looking forward to seeing Lowry, O’Brien and Sarah Carey being hit with humongous legal bills for their costs and the tribunal’s as a result of their obfuscation, delaying tactics, leaks etc. It seems to me that hitting Lowry with a bill he can’t afford to pay would force him to bankruptcy, and bankrupts aren’t allowed hold Dáil seats. Not as good as jail, but that’s a process that could take a lot longer, and I for one can’t wait for him to start feeling pain.

I definitely agree, Geysir, that O’Brien is making far too much noise. It could be the indignation of an innocent man wrongly accused, but that doesn’t square for me with his delaying tactics, fruitless legal challenges and personal attacks on Moriarty and the tribunal. To misquote for gender accuracy: “The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.”