AND talking of crime. . . A crime was created" by Section 94 of the Finance Act 1983, sub section 2, which states: "A person shall, without prejudice to any other penalty to which he may be liable, be guilty of an offence under this section if, after the date of the passing of this Act he:
"(a) knowingly or wilfully delivers any incorrect return, statement or accounts or knowingly or wilfully furnishes any incorrect information in connection with any tax . . ."
Sub section 3 of Section 94 of the Act sets out - the penalties on been found guilty of such offences on summary conviction a fine of £1,000 or, imprisonment of up to 12 months; and on conviction on indictment a fine not exceeding £10,000 or imprisonment of up to five years.
Compared with other crimes involving sums far less than many of the tax frauds we know about, the fines and terms of imprisonment provided are pretty modest.
Remember the beef tribunal? Not much came out of it despite the massive legal costs, but there were a few hard nuggets. For instance, the tribunal concluded: "There was a deliberate policy in the Goodman Group of companies to evade payments of income tax by way of under the counter payments to employees. . . the system of concealment was common in all relevant plants (and) was known to the top management of the group, un doubtedly authorised by them and, in the words of (an official) of the Revenue Investigation Branch was very well and professionally put together, and had been organised by a large organisation and it had been organised by professionals." (pages 335 and 336 of the tribunal report.)
The amount involved was in excess of £4, million.
Pretty clear cut, wouldn't you think? A tribunal of inquiry establishing that there had been deliberate and orchestrated falsification of tax returns, constituting an offence under Section 94 of the Finance Act 1983. And what has happened? Nothing.
LAST May, Michael McDowell TD wrote to the Taoiseach, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment inquiring why nothing had been done about this. He also inquired why members of "top management" of the Goodman organisation had not been disqualified as directors of companies under the Company Act 1963. There had been a kicking to touch by all concerned which would have done Dick Spring proud in his rugby playing days.
I understand there are some grounds for being worried about the adequacy of admissible evidence to ground a criminal prosecution. But just think of the furore there would be if, say, one of the more notorious criminal gangs stole £4 million from a bank, that an official inquiry established they had done so but there was some technical obstacle to their prosecution.
This was not the only bizarre outcome to the inquiry into the beef industry in the context of possible crime. There was also the little matter of a £500,000 fraud concerning improper claims for EC subsidies for meat which came to light in December 1986. The Investigations Section of the Revenue Commissioners recommended in September 1987 that the Garda Fraud Squad be called in, but the Department of Agriculture delayed doing this until February 1988. Further delays ensured and the Garda Fraud Squad investigation did not begin until two years after the fraud was discovered.
Eventually, in May 1991, the DPP decided the "inordinate delays in completing the investigations and, in particular, in referring the matter to the gardai" had "effectively eliminated" what hope there might have been of "bringing home criminal responsibility" (page 398 of the beef tribunal report). (I am indebted for this reference to an article by Ciaran McCullagh of UCC in Sociological Perspectives).
"In that latter article, the former stockbroker, now journalist and senator, Shane Ross, is quoted as saying in relation to another type of prevalent fraud, insider dealing: "It is happening all the time and it is just a historical fact on the Dublin, Stock Exchange.
And on Monday there was the revelation in this newspaper about the failure of three directors of Murray Consultants to report to the Revenue Commissioners earnings abroad over a period of a decade and their subsequent settlement of £1 million with the latter body.
It would be entirely invidious and unfair to suggest that these three directors were guilty of a crime or of fraud and neither do I wish to suggest that they are in the same category as those involved in the previous two incidents mentioned in this column. However, the scale of the monies concerned is such as to render of negligible significance the sums involved in more than two thirds of the 55,000 plus larcenies committed each year in the Republic - larcenies of property valued £200 or less.
IS there not something radically wrong with the values enshrined in our criminal law system that focuses so much attention on the anti social acts of society's deprived and such little attention on the far more grievous antisocial acts of people from the privileged section of society?
Furthermore, is there not something grievously wrong with the values represented by the media, who largely ignore the anti social behaviour of the privileged and single out an oppressed group such as the travelling community as the locus of large scale criminal activity? Three days ago, the Sunday Independent carried three articles, billed on the front page under the heading "The Travelling Godfathers". One of these articles began with the sentence: Garda intelligence reports show that an estimated 12 gangs of travellers and mobile traders - up to 80 people in all - are responsible for most of the murders and vicious attacks on elderly people living alone in the past year.
There is reason to be suspicious about this claim - for instance the use of the word "show" and the ambiguity of the phrase mobile traders" - but quite apart from that, what is the relevance of the identification of these suspects as travellers? Would it be relevant to identify them as Catholics, for instance? If the story was in the context of Northern Ireland just think of the offence there would be caused if the headline was "The Catholic Godfathers" or if the report was that 12 gangs of Catholics were involved in crime. The reference was essentially in the same category as racism.
And even if the thrust of the three stories was true, apart from the violence involved, would it still not be negligible in terms of the property misappropriated, as compared with.the corporate impropriety that we know about?
Gay Byrne said on radio last week that the whole criminal justice system was in disarray. He could well be right, but not in the sense that he intended.