Trevor Baines

[Boo Gay'n]

Whose sentence was light, a man in his 70s who has led a very fine life, but now seems destined to languish in a high security prison for the major part of his remaining life, or a young lawyer whose career is now in tatters? Is either humane, or really proportionate?

 

Meanwhile, we have our Tone dismally failing in trying to make his new best mate in Libya see sense and then some embarrassed shuffling in the Cameron camp, let alone the rescue debacle. Libya was good for a while, now it is bad again, and sanctions rain down. Let's face it, no sane person would have thought snuggling up to Gaddafi was either sensible or ethical. But that is what happened and has anyone faced money laundering charges because money has moved. But that is given the cloak of respectibility as 'diplomacy'. The same diplomacy that has led to countless deaths in many other countries, ignored because of 'sovereignty' but actually the motivator is money.

 

So, how can the international community take the moral high ground in this without even blushing at the things they have ignored? And which poor fucker is going to end up with a Libyan connection taken on when they were great chaps the other week, but now seem to be pariahs?

 

I commend anyone interested in this to read Misha Glenny, 'McMafia', it certainly makes you think about not only the nuts and bolts of money laundering, but also how the global economy has fostered it without taking any meaningful steps to control it other than seeking a few exemplars.

Gladys

 

You seem to echo a number of members who have this, 'oh how sad for the dears'. IMHO this is pathetic. Clever Trevor has been found guilty of two serious crimes and rightly deserves to be in prison. His age is neither here nor there. Isn't anyone asking if a person with such a blind-eyed approach to business governance may have done this before???

 

As for young Jenny, stupidity isn't much of a defence at law, is it?

[Evil Goblin]

As for young Jenny, stupidity isn't much of a defence at law, is it?

I don't know - perhaps JW can comment?

[Gladys]

Whose sentence was light, a man in his 70s who has led a very fine life, but now seems destined to languish in a high security prison for the major part of his remaining life, or a young lawyer whose career is now in tatters? Is either humane, or really proportionate?

 

Meanwhile, we have our Tone dismally failing in trying to make his new best mate in Libya see sense and then some embarrassed shuffling in the Cameron camp, let alone the rescue debacle. Libya was good for a while, now it is bad again, and sanctions rain down. Let's face it, no sane person would have thought snuggling up to Gaddafi was either sensible or ethical. But that is what happened and has anyone faced money laundering charges because money has moved. But that is given the cloak of respectibility as 'diplomacy'. The same diplomacy that has led to countless deaths in many other countries, ignored because of 'sovereignty' but actually the motivator is money.

 

So, how can the international community take the moral high ground in this without even blushing at the things they have ignored? And which poor fucker is going to end up with a Libyan connection taken on when they were great chaps the other week, but now seem to be pariahs?

 

I commend anyone interested in this to read Misha Glenny, 'McMafia', it certainly makes you think about not only the nuts and bolts of money laundering, but also how the global economy has fostered it without taking any meaningful steps to control it other than seeking a few exemplars.

Gladys

 

You seem to echo a number of members who have this, 'oh how sad for the dears'. IMHO this is pathetic. Clever Trevor has been found guilty of two serious crimes and rightly deserves to be in prison. His age is neither here nor there. Isn't anyone asking if a person with such a blind-eyed approach to business governance may have done this before???

 

As for young Jenny, stupidity isn't much of a defence at law, is it?

 

No, you have me wrong. I don't have any particular feelings either way for either individual. My main argument is at the fairness of lynching those some way down the food chain because they may be easy targets, meanwhile the real perpetrator gets a plea bargain and the large institutions involved also get off without any penalty. Then, when we look at how the world has taken another sudden lurch; individuals, who any man in the street wouldn't trust their cat with, have been hitherto feted, are now where they should be. But again, do you think Blair is ever going to be in the frame for handling the proceeds of crime (let alone any accusations of corruption which may or may not be justified), or the banks that house the Gaddafi family money?

 

Evil Goblin has summed up my feelings and I would add that I doubt there are any reliable studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the current global AML regime in countering the originating crimes, ditto terrorist funding which is almost unstoppable given the very small amounts involved. That is not to say that AML efforts are wrong, but there has to be recognition that pilloring the end of the chain is not conducive to that end of the chain doing what it should do and that is report suspicious activity into a well integrated and resourced international database that will have the intelligence to then root out the criminals. That, I think, is FATF's nirvana, but the internationally patchy ability to deliver to that standard has meant that the objective is now to get a few ML convictions and job is done.

 

As for JH, ignorance of the law is no defence, but naivity may indicate the degree of criminal intent and also boost the defence of lack of training.

 

But I would defer to the lawyers, of course.

[localyokel]

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc//detailedassessmentofobservanceof.pdf

 

page 10 / points 7 & 18

 

Quite so. I fully support AML inititaives and legislation, what I would hope to see is fairness and also leadership from the top on who people are prepared to do business with. You also have to question whether AML is actually working to dissuade the perpetrators of the originating crimes to commit those crimes. Or, for that matter, the terrorists from obtaining their funding.

 

Fairness in terms of jurisdictional risks too. Can you imagine the size of the crap storm if THIS would have happened offshore:

 

The Bank for Gangsters:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362561/Bank-gangsters-Police-open-7k-safety-deposit-boxes-discover-50m.html

 

I'd suggest the UK needs to get its own house in order before it starts thinking that grubby money laundering operations only happen offshore.

[Gladys]

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc//detailedassessmentofobservanceof.pdf

 

page 10 / points 7 & 18

 

Quite so. I fully support AML inititaives and legislation, what I would hope to see is fairness and also leadership from the top on who people are prepared to do business with. You also have to question whether AML is actually working to dissuade the perpetrators of the originating crimes to commit those crimes. Or, for that matter, the terrorists from obtaining their funding.

 

Fairness in terms of jurisdictional risks too. Can you imagine the size of the crap storm if THIS would have happened offshore:

 

The Bank for Gangsters:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362561/Bank-gangsters-Police-open-7k-safety-deposit-boxes-discover-50m.html

 

I'd suggest the UK needs to get its own house in order before it starts thinking that grubby money laundering operations only happen offshore.

Try Googling 'Isle of Man VAT registration' to see one of the first hits and the kind of savoury UK based operation that exists. Then have a look at 'bank', licences offered within 24 hours on that site. You can also look at how they view the IOM; difficult and so much better to operate through Seychelles or Belize. Well, they are probably right, if you want limited money laundering questions asked. This is a company which seems to be based in the UK and is allowed to operate in this way? Please remind me who are the money launderers' friends? The whole thing grows more and more astonishing, and more and more depressing.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Gladys

[Boo Gay'n]

Whose sentence was light, a man in his 70s who has led a very fine life, but now seems destined to languish in a high security prison for the major part of his remaining life, or a young lawyer whose career is now in tatters? Is either humane, or really proportionate?

 

Meanwhile, we have our Tone dismally failing in trying to make his new best mate in Libya see sense and then some embarrassed shuffling in the Cameron camp, let alone the rescue debacle. Libya was good for a while, now it is bad again, and sanctions rain down. Let's face it, no sane person would have thought snuggling up to Gaddafi was either sensible or ethical. But that is what happened and has anyone faced money laundering charges because money has moved. But that is given the cloak of respectibility as 'diplomacy'. The same diplomacy that has led to countless deaths in many other countries, ignored because of 'sovereignty' but actually the motivator is money.

 

So, how can the international community take the moral high ground in this without even blushing at the things they have ignored? And which poor fucker is going to end up with a Libyan connection taken on when they were great chaps the other week, but now seem to be pariahs?

 

I commend anyone interested in this to read Misha Glenny, 'McMafia', it certainly makes you think about not only the nuts and bolts of money laundering, but also how the global economy has fostered it without taking any meaningful steps to control it other than seeking a few exemplars.

Gladys

 

You seem to echo a number of members who have this, 'oh how sad for the dears'. IMHO this is pathetic. Clever Trevor has been found guilty of two serious crimes and rightly deserves to be in prison. His age is neither here nor there. Isn't anyone asking if a person with such a blind-eyed approach to business governance may have done this before???

 

As for young Jenny, stupidity isn't much of a defence at law, is it?

 

No, you have me wrong. I don't have any particular feelings either way for either individual. My main argument is at the fairness of lynching those some way down the food chain because they may be easy targets, meanwhile the real perpetrator gets a plea bargain and the large institutions involved also get off without any penalty. Then, when we look at how the world has taken another sudden lurch; individuals, who any man in the street wouldn't trust their cat with, have been hitherto feted, are now where they should be. But again, do you think Blair is ever going to be in the frame for handling the proceeds of crime (let alone any accusations of corruption which may or may not be justified), or the banks that house the Gaddafi family money?

 

Evil Goblin has summed up my feelings and I would add that I doubt there are any reliable studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of the current global AML regime in countering the originating crimes, ditto terrorist funding which is almost unstoppable given the very small amounts involved. That is not to say that AML efforts are wrong, but there has to be recognition that pilloring the end of the chain is not conducive to that end of the chain doing what it should do and that is report suspicious activity into a well integrated and resourced international database that will have the intelligence to then root out the criminals. That, I think, is FATF's nirvana, but the internationally patchy ability to deliver to that standard has meant that the objective is now to get a few ML convictions and job is done.

 

As for JH, ignorance of the law is no defence, but naivity may indicate the degree of criminal intent and also boost the defence of lack of training.

 

But I would defer to the lawyers, of course.

 

OK - I accept that I misunderstood you. The problem then, is how to tackle the big villains when we are such a small place. Isn't nailing their consiglieris, such as TB, once in a while still a good idea?

[Gladys]

Yes, it is. I make no apologies for the likes of TB, but as I said above, has any of this actually prevented any crimes or terrorist activity?

[Blade Runner]

Yes, it is. I make no apologies for the likes of TB, but as I said above, has any of this actually prevented any crimes or terrorist activity?

 

No and never will do. Once they came up with the idea of suicide bombers we have no chance of preventing them, just have to keep going about our daily lives as normal and not even think about them.

 

Or they have won.

[Gladys]

Yes, that is one aspect of AML, but the other is receiving and dealing in the proceeds of crime and that is a whole spectrum of potential follies. But has this ever prevented the originating crime? Sad to say, I don't think so. Organised crime is, well, so organised, it will always find a way.

 

Meanwhile, we do our best, we tie ourselves up in knots meeting international standards, we regulate ourselves very well and still we don't come up to scratch. Yet I see on a daily basis, entirely questionnable activities and approaches from those in a place that severely criticises us! Let alone the complete misunderstanding of what we do, nominee directors for one. Perhaps those that want some money laundering scalps could look nearer to home, cheaper, more easily found and hugely more culpable.

[Theodolite]

Isle of Man Courts Website

 

Wendy Baines' appeal fails.

 

The most significant words in the judgment to my mind are:

 

32. In our judgment this was a serious breach of trust committed by the Appellant and Mr Baines who were able to steal a substantial sum of money in circumstances in which such theft might well not have been discovered and it was necessary to impose a sentence which would deter others

(my italics)

 

and I wonder how many times in the future the Isle of Man Courts will be presented with this judgment as a significant precedent

[Albert Tatlock]

From MR: Jenny Holt granted leave to appeal

[The Phantom]

From MR: Jenny Holt granted leave to appeal

 

Good on her. It's time our Kangaroo Courts got dragged into the real world. Drag em to the Privy Court for the first time in nearly 30 years and lets watch the fun.

It was obvious from the outset that Trev was going to be our Sacrificial Goat to the OECD and he was going to take anyone down that was associated with him.

[piebaps]

From MR: Jenny Holt granted leave to appeal

 

Good on her. It's time our Kangaroo Courts got dragged into the real world. Drag em to the Privy Court for the first time in nearly 30 years and lets watch the fun.

It was obvious from the outset that Trev was going to be our Sacrificial Goat to the OECD and he was going to take anyone down that was associated with him.

 

30 years Phantom? there have been a number of cases resolved at the Privy Council http://www.judgments.im/content/otherjudgments.htm

 

[GD4ELI]

30 years Phantom? there have been a number of cases resolved at the Privy Council http://www.judgments...erjudgments.htm

 

But there hasn't been a good hanging for too many years...

[Lost Login]

It was obvious from the outset that Trev was going to be our Sacrificial Goat to the OECD Guilty and he was going to take anyone down that was associated with him.

 

Just as you can be sure that night follows day you can be sure that Baines was guilty. Nothing to do with the OECD, he stole £900,000 of somebody elses money. His wife £400,000. Yes people may argue that other aspect were political but the theft was that. Pure and Simple

 

I have some sympathy for Holt in that in my view she was out of her depth. She probaly should have known that or realised that and as an Advocate I expect that a higher standard is expected than for an ordinary person. Whether or not it happened in this case I have no idea but I believe there is a temptation for a young professional to bite off more than they can chew in an attempt to make a name for themselves.

 

Ultimatly it is for the Courts to decide and as at this point they and specifically a Jury have found her guilty.