manshimajin Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I see none of the Island's newshounds have picked up on this story. They will have picked it up all right, and been told to keep it as quiet as possible, while 'Mastermind' Bell tries to find some way out of this latest one. Never-ending. Just what sort of reputation does the Isle of Man have ? No wonder the Gov are using the TT and MGP to 'Enhance' it. The events may have their problems, but the money they bring through the fans is honest money. There was a well publicised case (mentioned on here at the time) in Northern Ireland in which an IOM financial adviser was caught on video providing "advice" to a couple (subsequently jailed) on how to hide money from the UK HMRC. This video clip was then given plenty of air time on TV and the Isle of Man's reputation tarred by implication. When nothing had appeared in the local media, nor any action apparently having been taken against the person giving illegal advice, I asked Mr Bell, who was Treasurer at the time, what action he was going to initiate against the adviser in order to uphold the Island's reputation for financial probity. His reply was that nothing needed to be done as the adviser had left the Island. When it comes to these issues, Manxie, I would not hold your breath for Mr Bell to do or say anything other than sweeping things under the carpet as 'out of sight and out of mind' appears to be the best way of safeguarding the good reputation of the Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 http://www.judgments...ntent/J1238.htm I don't recognise any of the names in the 'WYLY & OTRS' list, does anyone here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx1Bloke Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 IOM got mentioned in the NY Times connected to this case that's been before Deemster Doyle http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/business/charles-wyly-dies-at-77-amassed-a-fortune-with-brother.html?_r=1 I wonder what protection and representation (by persons qualified in US law) the local people will have so that they don't when giving their "assistance", that Deemster Doyles says they should give, unwittingly implicate themselves in the proceedings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 http://www.judgments...ntent/J1238.htm I don't recognise any of the names in the 'WYLY & OTRS' list, does anyone here? Yep, some managers at some of the CSPs. However, knowing a little about this case, this money was taken in to the Island many years ago, prior to us having the intense scrutiny of the FSC, OECD etc. Some of these guys have inherited these cases from prior staff and won't know much about them. One of them is now living in Oz and is going to have to come back to the Island for the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 IOM got mentioned in the NY Times connected to this case that's been before Deemster Doyle http://www.nytimes.c...other.html?_r=1 I wonder what protection and representation (by persons qualified in US law) the local people will have so that they don't when giving their "assistance", that Deemster Doyles says they should give, unwittingly implicate themselves in the proceedings? This is a civil case not a crminal one and the persons concerned are witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Tsch Piebaps, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Most of the manx respondents to the application, and thus the witnesses are well known in financial services sector and should have PI insurance to cover representation, if they and their employers have been sensible and complied with regulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Most of the manx respondents to the application, and thus the witnesses are well known in financial services sector and should have PI insurance to cover representation, if they and their employers have been sensible and complied with regulations Good programs on MR yesterday John, there should be more of this quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I take it you mean the Opinion programme and the Manin Line. You were taken in by various vacuous opinions somewhat disguised by verbosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxie44 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I take it you mean the Opinion programme and the Manin Line. You were taken in by various vacuous opinions somewhat disguised by verbosity. Can this be handed to John Moss to translate please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I take it you mean the Opinion programme and the Manin Line. You were taken in by various vacuous opinions somewhat disguised by verbosity. I never said I was an intellek intellic a clever sod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Most of the manx respondents to the application, and thus the witnesses are well known in financial services sector and should have PI insurance to cover representation, if they and their employers have been sensible and complied with regulations If they are witnesses, why would their PI cover them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx1Bloke Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 are witnesses immune from prosecution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx1Bloke Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 http://www.judgments...ntent/J1238.htm I don't recognise any of the names in the 'WYLY & OTRS' list, does anyone here? Yep, some managers at some of the CSPs. However, knowing a little about this case, this money was taken in to the Island many years ago, prior to us having the intense scrutiny of the FSC, OECD etc. Some of these guys have inherited these cases from prior staff and won't know much about them. One of them is now living in Oz and is going to have to come back to the Island for the case. and who is going to pay for that? hopefully not him but his former employers (ICM)....how even can a witness now living in another Jurisdiction be compelled by an IOM Deemster to return to the IOM to give 'assistance' to a foreign (US) Court? Surely the foreign (US) Court should go to the Jurisdiction where the Witness is living and apply there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.