There has been general astonishment at the findings of the High Court inspector into the “Fyffes” and “DCC” insider dealing transactions.
The inspector found that, Mr. Jim Flavin, having received legal advice, broke the law as to insider dealing, but, in the light of the advice, did so inadvertently.
Oddly, the judge who appointed the inspector to conduct the investigation said, in making the appointment:
The earlier proceedings were concerned only with the civil law and did not have to address culpability or responsibility of persons who may have advised or planned the transactions.”
How did that interesting idea fall by the wayside, as it appears to have done?
[...] Edward McGarr of McGarr Solicitors seems to have noticed something interesting relating to the DCC decision on Jim Flavin. The post is too short to pull a quote from, you’ll have to head over there to find out [...]
I am struggling to see why the idea is so interesting in this context, but in any event it was not the judge who said the quoted words. They were part of the Director of Corporate Enforcement’s affidavit, and were quoted without approval (or otherwise) by the judge.
The judge personally remarked: “The earlier proceedings were concerned only with the civil law and did not have to address culpability or responsibility of persons who may have advised or planned the transactions.” QED?