Is it just me or is there just the faintest hint of irony in this"deal?

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28656050

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28656050


:thumbsup:

[Bristolhibby]

Was thinking exactly the same thing when I read it this morning.

What's the difference?

Both bribes IMO.

J

[Geo_1875]

I suppose it makes sense to settle it this way. He's admitted his guilt and pays a $100m "fine". They could have gone on for ages running up more bills, found him guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in jail. That would have cost their taxpayers another fortune, if he ever saw the inside of a cell.

[Hibee-Bongo]

I suppose it makes sense to settle it this way. He's admitted his guilt and pays a $100m "fine". They could have gone on for ages running up more bills, found him guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in jail. That would have cost their taxpayers another fortune, if he ever saw the inside of a cell.

So he doesn't have to go to jail because he's rich? :confused:

[Geo_1875]

So he doesn't have to go to jail because he's rich? :confused:

I didn't say that. But he's over 80 years old and with enough money to pay lawyers for ever to keep him out on appeal till the day he dies. Take his money and cut the taxpayers losses.

[PeeJay]

So he doesn't have to go to jail because he's rich? :confused:

This type of arrangement is seemingly quite "normal" here and it is also something that regular people of all income groups benefit from (I've just seen figures mentioned of 124,000 such cases in one year) - the sum involved is one thing, what usually happens is that the proceedings are stopped before they actually get underway. The unusual aspect of this case is that it progressed so far before coming to an arrangement they could have reached at its onset. Apparently, officially he's not guilty, nor is he innocent - we just basically have a stay of proceedings and it's cost the little git 100 million dollars to keep him out of the courthouse, so he can get back to doing what he is good at ...

Surely common sense alone dictates that he is paying such a huge sum for a reason? It would also suggest - IMO - that he is in fact guilty - seems that the BRD has not done itself any favours with this high-profile ruling ...

[Hibs Class]

Does this make him more or less of a criminal than Dave King?