Gladys Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Why? "IF ONLY it were that simple. Noni is accustomed to a princess’ lifestyle and will take nothing less, which is why she applied to court requesting that she be allowed to take a small amount of cash every month in order to maintain her family’s lifestyle. As she said in her application, failure of the court to grant her request would mean “my family will suffer terrible difficulties and will be unable to meet its economic needs.” Her family’s economic needs amount to £20,600 a month and include (all figures are in Cyprus pounds): £3,500 for electricity, phone and heating bills, £1,500 travel costs, £1,100 house insurance, £1,200 for domestic servants, £800 for the kids’ school fees, £1,000 for personal care and £4,000 on clothing." The domestic servants may have to go. There isn't any other of their outgoings that could be trimmed. (and you thought the MEA are expensive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Mr Baines looks to have been stupid yes, but whilst the money laundering charge gets thrown about, imo, he is tangled up in nothing more than Asset Stripping. Something that has gone on in the IOM unabaitted for years. Take all the money out of the Company then cry Insolvency. On a bigger scale yes, but the same thing. Nothing new there then apart from involving the Yanks who think we're a bunch of robbing fuckers anyway. Typical Yanks, if we can't have it no-one can . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 C£ are worth more than Sterling too! Oh, the angst of distressed gentlefolk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I do not know all (or, actually, any) of the facts, I doubt that anyone else does, except those directly involved, BUT the yanks will consider themselves involved as the currency used was USD. Now, given that most international trade is conducted in USD and given that the US have met resounding failure in their 'war against terrorism', is it not plain that the US will start flexing its muscles, as self-appointed global policeman, to examine every single transaction no matter where in the world and then determine which are, and which are not, legitimate? Far from supporting any kind of nefarious activity, I am quite against money laundering in any guise; but hang on US, I am not sure that the rest of the world wants you as the moral arbiter in every aspect. Well, not until you put your own house in order and can claim the moral high ground from right rather than might. How many USD have been used, and will most likely continue to be used, to prop-up objectionable regimes because they are convenient for the US? /rant mode off, for the moment./ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Nothing new there then apart from involving the Yanks who think we're a bunch of robbing fuckers anyway. Typical Yanks, if we can't have it no-one can . Wonder how long before they land at Ronaldsway to do some rendition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Trevor Baines has been a great ambassador and advocate of the Island for many years, being involved in local charity work and several organisations. He's not some Tony Soprano character and I feel that he should be given the benefit of any doubt until the complex investigations are complete. From what I can see, financial legislation is a minefield and no individual or organisation wants to pay more than they need to to anyone for anything, and huge PLC's are as bad as anyone for maximising income by dubious means. I'm not trying to justify anything, but it always seems that when anyone successful fails or falls there is a lot of gloating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I wouldn't mind but this story is bugger all compared to the one I heard on Saturday night. Jesus...I wish *that* would get some airing soon... ...GOMH*... ...PS Yes, this is tittle tattle. But so what, it was a great story ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 From what I can see, financial legislation is a minefield and no individual or organisation wants to pay more than they need to to anyone for anything, and huge PLC's are as bad as anyone for maximising income by dubious means. Quiet right. I just wonder, given that the Chief Muppet has just returned from a 'very successful' US trip to point out how responsible the system here is; if this will have any effect on the US view of the Island - and if it will be positive or negative. If you google the other name mentioned, it throws up some interesting past events with US action/involvement etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted December 5, 2007 Author Share Posted December 5, 2007 The money which was alledgedly laundered through a trust administered by Mr Bains, was the proceeds of a Wall St flotation It came from a software company which had a very ordinary product , this product was marketed as something spectacular and the investors fell for it in a big way, I think at the hight of the dotcom boom The Cypriot guy running the company then moved the investors cash offshore, which is where Trevs comes in We should bear in mind that the Cypriot guy was considered a Wall St whizz kid at the time and he had already fooled plenty of experienced and hard nosed investors before the cash arrived here It looks like negligence rather than a serious attempt at money laundering, it seems unlikely that someone with Trevs money would need to take such a risk Either way he won't be going skiing this winter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 but hang on US, I am not sure that the rest of the world wants you as the moral arbiter in every aspect. Well, not until you put your own house in order and can claim the moral high ground from right rather than might. How many USD have been used, and will most likely continue to be used, to prop-up objectionable regimes because they are convenient for the US? Tell that to the Natwest three who were extradited to the USA under a treaty designed to speed the extradition of terrorists. Strangely the US has not yet used the treaty to extradite one terrorist, but its happy to nab bankers and bang them up for months awaiting trial. I believe the IOM is fortunate in that unlike the UK you can't get grounds to extradite unless / until a prima facie case is shown against the individual concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 but hang on US, I am not sure that the rest of the world wants you as the moral arbiter in every aspect. Well, not until you put your own house in order and can claim the moral high ground from right rather than might. How many USD have been used, and will most likely continue to be used, to prop-up objectionable regimes because they are convenient for the US? Tell that to the Natwest three who were extradited to the USA under a treaty designed to speed the extradition of terrorists. Strangely the US has not yet used the treaty to extradite one terrorist, but its happy to nab bankers and bang them up for months awaiting trial. I believe the IOM is fortunate in that unlike the UK you can't get grounds to extradite unless / until a prima facie case is shown against the individual concerned. That's the three thieving greedy bastards who just pleaded guilty, isn't it? I agree, however, that extradition treaties should either be reciprocal or rescinded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 but hang on US, I am not sure that the rest of the world wants you as the moral arbiter in every aspect. Well, not until you put your own house in order and can claim the moral high ground from right rather than might. How many USD have been used, and will most likely continue to be used, to prop-up objectionable regimes because they are convenient for the US? Tell that to the Natwest three who were extradited to the USA under a treaty designed to speed the extradition of terrorists. Strangely the US has not yet used the treaty to extradite one terrorist, but its happy to nab bankers and bang them up for months awaiting trial. I believe the IOM is fortunate in that unlike the UK you can't get grounds to extradite unless / until a prima facie case is shown against the individual concerned. If you're looking for me to express any sympathy for some greedy investment wankers who defrauded a British bank out of millions of pounds you'll be sorely disappointed! They deserve everything they get and then some more. What the Isle of Man doesn't need is dodgy bastards spoiling the party for everyone else. If the US has a case against them, let them be tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 Couldn't agree more. Only thing is, establishing that the US does have a case beyond the fact that the laundering has been of USD; someone else may well have a much clearer case and may be able to demonstrate actual loss or other deliterious affect of such activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 ... someone else may well have a much clearer case and may be able to demonstrate actual loss or other deliterious affect of such activities. Maybe, but presumably those states or individuals are too busy/can't be arsed to pursue the matter. If the US wants to spend money prosecuting and incarcerating people for money laundering offences then I'm not going to argue over jurisdiction. I could write my knowledge of international law on the back of a postage stamp, but I understand that once a court claims jurisdiction over a case and that claim is recognized as legitimate by courts in other jurisdictions, they generally won't proceed until the case in the first jurisdiction concludes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.