Trevor Baines

[Gladys]

In an earlier experience with a statutory corporation, the mantra was a 'fraud on the Act', which basically stopped the statutory corporation subverting the limitations within its own constitution by setting up ordinary registered companies with their distinct legal personality to do the thing that was either expressly prohibited or not explicitly permitted.

 

I am not a lawyer, just a humble Chartered Secretary, but my guess is that that is where the crux lies.

[Tugger]

You should read on to what Ms Appleby says. You have to wonder why the only people who don't really have a dog in the fight, the auditors, are the ones casting doubt over the legality of it all

[P.K.]

Thanks Gladys but the MCC was already set up wasn't it?

 

Quite definitely if PC Venables is posting as such I think a sig should be the equivilent of his number on his lapel, a public display of his profession.

 

Sorry Chinanhand but despite having been in the Met I don't think I'll keep up with your insistence that you have to state your profession on here - it's a bit of a drag...[/font]

 

I am pretty certain no matter what your position in the MET PK you are not posting on here as a policeman.

 

Tongue in cheek Mr C, strictly tongue in cheek. That was over 20 years ago!

 

 

Just to say over guarantees and the power of MCC to take out loans the PKF report says the following:

 

2.36 As part of the approval process for both loans, Barclays obtained legal opinions from Cains

Advocates on the legality of the loans and also the provision of the guarantee by the MEA. These

opinions were addressed and solely provided to Barclays. The Cains opinion letters are complex

in their structure but conclude that there is no restriction on the ability of MCC to borrow either

under its articles or under the Isle of Man Companies Acts and that, provided that the facilities are

used for purposes that are within the MEA’s power, the provision of a guarantee by the MEA is

within its power. We understand that this advice was subsequently confirmed after the event, by

the Attorney General in written advice (of which we have not been provided a copy) to Treasury

dated 15th November 2004.

 

 

The guarantee letter to Barlcays is here - signed by good old Mr Proffitt!

 

The expression "well and truly kippered" springs to mind here.

 

The Select Committee on the MEA are scheduled to meet tomorrow. I wonder if this meeting is the Go/NoGo on their "Publish and be damned" issue? They've been at it quite a while now so I would have thought they can't be that far off their definitive report.

 

Interesting times. Wait and see mode...

[P.K.]

By giving retrospective authority Tynwald did not legally guarantee the repayment, it just bowed to the probable inevitable outcome of any court case to pay back and avoided large sums of legal fees and a ruined reputation. Practically of course that is the effect of what it did. Strangely it appears it did the decent thing, ie ensured that debts incurred by its nationalised electricity producer were honoured

 

Slow day today, so I've just found it in here.

 

To save wading through it:

 

"Based on legal advice, the auditors and the current Board are of the opinion that certain transactions contained within these accounts were unlawful, and, following the year end, the auditors presented a petition under the Audit Act 1983.

 

On 11 July 2007 a number of the alleged unlawful items were sanctioned by Tynwald, and the petition was subsequently withdrawn."

 

But I still can't find the document where the MCC and Barclays entered into the loans agreement. Strange. Although it was bang on year end.

[P.K.]

How very timely...

[King Orry]

Back on point regarding TB. Is it right to feel, that maybe TB's sentence was a little harsh when compared to these three rogues.

 

Nick Leeson - £1.4 Billion - 6.5 Years (out after 3 years)

Jerome Kerviel - £6.9 Billion - 3 Years (plus two suspended)

Roys Poyiadjis - £111million - 0 Years (for cooperation in TB case)

[jimbms]

Back on point regarding TB. Is it right to feel, that maybe TB's sentence was a little harsh when compared to these three rogues.

 

Nick Leeson - £1.4 Billion - 6.5 Years (out after 3 years)

Jerome Kerviel - £6.9 Billion - 3 Years (plus two suspended)

Roys Poyiadjis - £111million - 0 Years (for cooperation in TB case)

Was those 3 convicted here? No, so you cannot compare them, he was convicted here therefor he serves a prison term that is felt right for here not elsewhere.

Edited October 7, 2010 by jimbms

[sibby]

Well what about comparing this to the SIB people. I know we can all say it was a long time but fraud has no limitation (unless it probably does here, who knows)

 

That was the biggest scandal to hit this Island for yonks. Directors was diving in on the cash and chucknig it around lavishly. One director a lawyer charged nearly the average annual wage for a day's work in one of the feeding frenzies. An SIB associate forged a will using pretend names to witness it, and there was deep suspicion over the death of one of the wealthier investors whose will it was. Someone hired a Learjet from Ronaldsway to flee the clutches of 'justice', the list goes on. Then all the shredding machines going at overtime. Those people knew what they were doing alright and it was grubby and dishonest

 

And how much did those people get . . . . .nothing.

 

Plus, if that is what they are worried about, it did the Isle of Man no favours in the eye of the world. Though maybe it was just as well that the lid didn't blow off after all. Not nice for those decent people who lost their savings though/

Edited October 7, 2010 by sibby

[jimbms]

So there was a trial and they got nothing?

[sibby]

Well, yes. That is the bottom line.

 

There was indeed a trial....and they got nothing.

 

Walked free without a blemish on their bottoms.

Edited October 7, 2010 by sibby

[jimbms]

So they got found not guilty and did not recieve a prison sentence, in other words you cannot compare the sentence as this baines herbert was found guilty

[Kopek]

While I can see that it was a 'Local' crime. The sentance, in any juristriction, should acknowlege the magnitude of the crime, not the damage it does to the Islands reputation.

 

Perhaps IOM plc should stand trial for letting it happen?

[ian rush]

It wasn't a not guilty - the trial was abandoned on various grounds such as ill-health, passage of time since the acts were committed etc.

SIB headnote.pdf

[sibby]

So they got found not guilty and did not recieve a prison sentence, in other words you cannot compare the sentence as this baines herbert was found guilty

Well actually I realise we're not really comparing like with like.

 

In the SIB matter there was eventually a trial but it was considered that, after all the time the Inspectors-cum-Liquidators took and then the police having to take a back seat until the Report was read and digested, the memories of the various witness of the defendants would have faded or the witnesses would have died. And all that.

 

So they were told to tootle along and an awful lot of people were relieved.

 

Some of course not so.

[jimbms]

So nothing at all to compare then, it seems Kopek is the only one to come up with a logical answer the rest sound like someone moaning because they are hard done by