For those who might have missed the story:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 45706.html

Do you agree that the sentence was too harsh?

I am in no doubt that the fraud was intentional, and the amount is fairly large, however passing down the maximum sentence for a 'money' crime (the money is being repaid btw) does seem harsh. Obviosuly they mean to deter others, but still. What I question more is that, in comparison, sentences involving crimes against another person, such as manslaughter and rape for example, get a comparatively milder treatment. Thinking that (in news the other day) the father who abused and raped his daughter over a period of 11 years only got 6 years prison for his crime makes me think this is imbalanced...

Way way way too harsh!I think he will end up getting off on an appeal because there was so much media attention.I know what he did was technically wrong but when you see as you said "real"criminals getting very mild sentences it seems very wrong to me!

Ridiculous if you ask me! Give him a fine, and make him pay back the money, not take up space in jail which could be used for someone who is a real threat to society!
White collar crime doesnt need a custodial sentence, these people could use their skills in other areas, be it community service or whatnot. Use them, dont leave them sitting in a jail for 6years!

And why the hell is the import duty on garlic so high in the first place?!

[quote="boodlesdoodles"]Ridiculous if you ask me! Give him a fine, and make him pay back the money, not take up space in jail which could be used for someone who is a real threat to society! quote]

Absolutely agree. There should be a bit of common sense used when sentencing happens. Others who have a string of convictions get smaller jail terms, serve half and are out and about to do it all again. Hopefully on appeal, the sentence will change.

I would agree that if he paid whatever customs excise he was due to pay, then that should be it. Leave the jail cell for someone who is a threat to others and society.

Customs Evasion v Rape = 6 years.

Im dumbfounded.

Customs fraud can be gotten over, but robbing a child of her youth and teenage years is something that can never be replaced. My heart goes out to Lorraine and I hope her bravery and strength will prompt others to come forward.

Hopefully this will give her closure. She deserves it.

vidia wrote:Customs Evasion v Rape = 6 years.

Im dumbfounded.

Customs fraud can be gotten over, but robbing a child of her youth and teenage years is something that can never be replaced. My heart goes out to Lorraine and I hope her bravery and strength will prompt others to come forward.

Hopefully this will give her closure. She deserves it.

+1 was only acing this conversation wit my parents last night. basically it's telling society tax evasion is classed as a bigger crime than raping a child from most of that child's life.

Far too harsh-a money crime can be punished with a money penalty ie making him pay back the money and more which he is doing.maybe a month or two jail just to send a message to others but 6 years,surely that will cost the state far more than the money he stole which he's paying back anyway

In general I think that if you're not a danger to society and if you haven't committed a terrible crime like murder,rape etc where you've stolen someone's life/childhood/best years then it's a waste of money being in jail. Community service or something would be better for a tax evader.

teapotty wrote:Far too harsh-a money crime can be punished with a money penalty ie making him pay back the money and more which he is doing.maybe a month or two jail just to send a message to others but 6 years,surely that will cost the state far more than the money he stole which he's paying back anywa y i

In general I think that if you're not a danger to society and if you haven't committed a terrible crime like murder,rape etc where you've stolen someone's life/childhood/best years then it's a waste of money being in jail. Community service or something would be better for a tax evader.

+1 to this and other comments.

When you think of the number of criminals that have killed people after being let off for serious assaults etc you'd wonder if the judge is detached from reality. Make the man repay the money and if he does it again maybe have a stricter punishment! I'd rather they deterred serious crime that affects others like rape and murder!

There's been a pretty consistent stream of calls to punish white collar crime since the recession kicked off. There's an endless ream of "Why haven't the bankers gone to jail". This is white collar crime. The man was convicted of tax evasion. It's not a victimless crime, its a serious offence. I don't think its fair to compare and contrast it with rape or murder-they are horrific offences and whether they are sentenced too lightly in ireland is a totally separate argument for a different thread.

The man made a conscious decision to avoid paying tax to the state over a period of time. He knew he should have been paying tax at a higher rate and decided to commit tax evasion in a calculated and consistent manner. This is white collar crime. The state suffers for it. I read he owed the state 1.6 million euro. How many SNAs/nurses/health equipment would that pay for? And he's only one case, with one specific offence. I really don't understand how people can call for white collar crime to be prosecuted more strictly and attract custodial sentences, then to say its too harsh when someone is convicted of it.

If you're in business, you can decide to play by the rules and pay your taxes or decide that, for whatever reason, a tax on something you import is too high and decide to evade paying the state what you owe. If he felt the tax on garlic was too high, he should have either lobbied for a change in the law, imported it from somewhere else, or decided not to import it at all. You don't get to pick and chose which tax laws you comply with. We either want to prosecute white collar crime and impose the relevant custodial sentences or we don't.

Anne Cordelia Shirley wrote:There's been a pretty consistent stream of calls to punish white collar crime since the recession kicked off. There's an endless ream of "Why haven't the bankers gone to jail". This is white collar crime. The man was convicted of tax evasion. It's not a victimless crime, its a serious offence. I don't think its fair to compare and contrast it with rape or murder-they are horrific offences and whether they are sentenced too lightly in ireland is a totally separate argument for a different thread.

The man made a conscious decision to avoid paying tax to the state over a period of time. He knew he should have been paying tax at a higher rate and decided to commit tax evasion in a calculated and consistent manner. This is white collar crime. The state suffers for it. I read he owed the state 1.6 million euro. How many SNAs/nurses/health equipment would that pay for? And he's only one case, with one specific offence. I really don't understand how people can call for white collar crime to be prosecuted more strictly and attract custodial sentences, then to say its too harsh when someone is convicted of it.

If you're in business, you can decide to play by the rules and pay your taxes or decide that, for whatever reason, a tax on something you import is too high and decide to evade paying the state what you owe. If he felt the tax on garlic was too high, he should have either lobbied for a change in the law, imported it from somewhere else, or decided not to import it at all. You don't get to pick and chose which tax laws you comply with. We either want to prosecute white collar crime and impose the relevant custodial sentences or we don't.

+1 - while I think 6 years is far too short a sentence for repeated rape of a child, that doesn't mean it's too long for a serious theft, which is what defrauding the revenue of €1.6 million is. According to a letter in the Times this morning, there was a decision recently to impose tougher custodial sentences on tax evaders to deter other would-be white collar criminals.
I've no doubt this sentence will be reduced on appeal, but it should still act as a major wake-up call for other business-people who think they can pick and choose which taxes they want to pay.