John Wright Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Maybe the upfront was needed by the licensed English barristers, they traditionally get the brief fees up front to cover preparation and the first day of trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 She's just a sacrificial lamb. I've come across plenty of senior (and very senior) Isle of Man lawyers who have done just as worse. Such as with-holding evidence, non-disclosure, lying or 'fibbing' in court, advocates mis-leading the court, deemsters mis-leading the court. (Hmmm, that last one looks a bit severe, I think I'd better make sure I can back it up if I'm going to leave it in....) They just didn't get caught or their 'peccadillos' were just accepted as the norm. It will be nice to see a few more off-Island judges brought in. Our system of justice and those that make their shameful excesses from it, need one hell of a good shake up. Top to bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Due to personal experience, I was not the least bit surprised to see which company she worked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Maybe the upfront was needed by the licensed English barristers, they traditionally get the brief fees up front to cover preparation and the first day of trial ok, no reason the UK shouldn't rob us in court too, but does the stolen money have to be paid back?? sort of odd if it does cos it would in theory go back into the account the baines had control of and there are apparently no people eligible to claim it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think that care is required here. There may be a civil claim against Baines former legal firm by the trust for return of the funds under a principle called knowing assistance There could be disciplinary proceedings as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Maybe Mark Moroney surely got out while the going was good! He's certainly had the freedom to 'Freedom to Flourish' since being a defendant in the Savings and Investment Bank trial all those years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 She's just a sacrificial lamb. I've come across plenty of senior (and very senior) Isle of Man lawyers who have done just as worse. Such as with-holding evidence, non-disclosure, lying or 'fibbing' in court, advocates mis-leading the court, deemsters mis-leading the court. (Hmmm, that last one looks a bit severe, I think I'd better make sure I can back it up if I'm going to leave it in....) They just didn't get caught or their 'peccadillos' were just accepted as the norm. It will be nice to see a few more off-Island judges brought in. Our system of justice and those that make their shameful excesses from it, need one hell of a good shake up. Top to bottom. Bollocks. She is a grown woman of 30. The judge was an off-Island judge, as far as I am aware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 . . The judge was an off-Island judge, as far as I am aware. Yep, that is what I mean. Our local clowns have been taking the p*55 for far too long. When it comes to advocates doing just about what they please, they've been letting the 'tail wag the dog' for far, far too long. *phrase courtesy of Deemster Kerruish RIP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThankU Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think that care is required here. There may be a civil claim against Baines former legal firm by the trust for return of the funds under a principle called knowing assistance There could be disciplinary proceedings as well. Thats it Athol Street will go to the Dogs, Dandara will move in with more tacky flats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. well... I imagine it'll be the proceeds of crime act that came in 2008/9 that you're really talking about here.... at the end of the day if you have gained your money (cash or bank account) by legitimate means you have nothing to fear from such legislation as you can prove you have the right to have it.... simple really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Maybe Mark Moroney surely got out while the going was good! He's certainly had the freedom to 'Freedom to Flourish' since being a defendant in the Savings and Investment Bank trial all those years ago. Quite ironic as he was the sacrificial lamb when the SIB went tits up, Mr Moroney being (I think) younger than Ms Holt at the time He took much of the flack whilst his two co-nominee directors got away relatively unscathed, one of them having a stroke, or as many put it "a stroke of luck" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. well... I imagine it'll be the proceeds of crime act that came in 2008/9 that you're really talking about here.... at the end of the day if you have gained your money (cash or bank account) by legitimate means you have nothing to fear from such legislation as you can prove you have the right to have it.... simple really? how do you have a 'right' to stolen property/funds? if my TV turns out to be stolen and the original owner turns up with a receipt i don't think i would be keeping it in law somehow?? my brother nicked it, i gave him a tenner. its mine now cos i paid for it?? no doubt the lawyers are entitled to be paid for their failure, but by the bainses, not someone they robbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Presumably the new offence of 'Money Laundering' does not carry a greater sentance than whatever it used to be known as? Money laundering is now a great catch all the way the laws have developed following interference over the last few years. I see a lot more people in the papers over the last few weeks caught transporting more than £10k in cash without reporting it (as you are required to do now) being charged under the anti money laundering legislation. It seems to be easier than catching someone doing something to just cite AML legislation and then let them disprove the charge. well... I imagine it'll be the proceeds of crime act that came in 2008/9 that you're really talking about here.... at the end of the day if you have gained your money (cash or bank account) by legitimate means you have nothing to fear from such legislation as you can prove you have the right to have it.... simple really? hmm, what about if you've saved your money over the years in cash under the mattress then? How d'ya prove that one. With these new AML regs the onus is on the alleged money-launderer to DISPROVE that the money was gotten by illegal means. If you can't prove where you got it, then you can't get it back once they confiscate it. That law puts everyone who deals in cash at risk, because these days cash is consdiered a risk! when it was once the only form of currency... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.