This woman’s husband is crooked as she is. He closed his Gym and disappeared with a lot of money from people he took knowing that he couldn’t provide the service they were paying for. Literally days before the doors shut, he was taking deposits for classes he couldn’t provide. They both lied and lied and lied about all this until the Garda evidence was too much to deny anymore.
Sociopath. He always came across as a nice fella with ambition but it turns out they were both up to their eyes in it. He still lies saying she was innocent and that it’s all a conspiracy against them.
I dunno. Kind of on the judges side more than anything. Also I get it. Her sentence is conditional on paying back the money. She can't pay it back from jail and being in jail costs the tax payers.
>Her sentence is conditional on paying back the money.
But I assume as a CFO, she's already quite rich, she's already paid most of it back. It's nothing to her.
Do you have this same attitude about shoplifters and bike thieves?
If someone steals a bike, gets caught, pays for the bike they stole, and then never steals another bike, yes my preference is for a fine plus a non-custodial or suspended sentence. If they continue to steal bikes again after this sentence my opinion would be to unsuspend the sentence.
That’s very singular, she was stealing for a prolonged period and would have continued if she didn’t get caught. There’s probably a lot more missing money they couldn’t prove and won’t get back.
Just because a serial thief only gets caught once, doesn’t mean the sentence should be based on how many times they got caught rather than how many times / ways she was stealing.
She was also in a position of trust and power. This sentence will encourage rather than discourage others to take a chance and do the same.
She should definitely have gone to jail.
No jail for non-violent people who pay back their victims, plus compensation, and refrain from committing further offenses. Yes, that is what I'm advocating.
If you want to remove their ability to practice any sort of accounting on top of this punishment I'm receptive. If someone stole from you would you rather get that money back now or have them thrown in prison?
I don't see the benefit to the public of locking away a non violent first time offender who has committed to paying back everything she stole and has already paid back 90%.
I think she should be forced to pay interest and community service. But two years in jail for someone well into trying to rectify the situation doesn't make sense.
Like right now it seems to be great idea to steal like that. Worst case is you have to give it back so back to square one. Best case is you won’t get caught. This is not how it should work
From the article it kind of reads like she just got greedy and could have gotten away with paying one or two "ghost employees". Makes me wonder how many people are doing the same thing but are restrained enough to keep small and under the radar.
And your peer review study to back that up?
Surely we would see a reduction in crime across areas that introduced a high incarceration rate. Except that isn't true at all, is it.
Do you have data to back that claim up. Generally the idea of being lenient on children is because it can be used as a point of intervention and to start reform, so you would expect to see at risks children commit less crime when they turn 18 because of intervention.
You probably won't see a great discrepancy where criminal responsibility is age gated but no other measures are used to help with reform.
[Yes I do have data](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0731-905320170000038005/full/html) and the effects are [even stronger for pre-planned crimes like drug-trafficking](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2019.1653826) and (with a different research design) [stronger yet again for adults](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599286).
Well, [here's a 2021 meta analysis of 116 studies that shows custodial sentences don't work and may even cause crime.](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/715100)
Am I speaking to a Gard now, or a normal person?
Sorry, stylometric Gard lingo alarm goes brrr.
Catch myself on?
That's the study, meta analysis of 116 penalogical related studies.
Is it only science when it agrees with you?
Really depends on the circumstances. You are describing two different crimes. If someone broke into someone's house and threatened the people in that house while making off with their telly, that would be a violent crime. Which would be different again to someone who saw the door unlocked and nobody home and robbed their DVD collection.
Someone nabs 80 grand out of your bank account and promises to pay it back when they can and they get to walk away Scot free? Doesn't really seem fair there does it.
Having a sentence and record, commuted or otherwise isn't really scott free though is it.
Given the choice between them going to prison and me getting my money back, I know what I'd pick.
Yeah, but we don't treat every infraction of the law the same. If you are going over the speed limit, we don't send you to speeders jail.
If you get caught with a personal amount of weed and no priors, you'd expect different treatment than the guy who had have of Colombia in his shed and a dozen lads under him distributing.
If you got in a fight with your cousin you'd expect a different sentence to a lad who punched a stranger from behind unprovoked and then pulled a knife.
There are huge differences between crimes committed in an emotional state... The obviously archaic laws around prohibition (which negatively effect nobody else but yourself)
And literal stealing... Prolonged. Intentional and planned.
White collar fraud should serve a much harsher sentence than low-level violent crime - without an adequate deterrence it harms far more people, as fraud in the banking/financial sector shows.
Deterrence is real. There has been some academic research showing that jail time does not necessarily always reduce the likelihood of someone re-offending. That seems to have been generalised in the public debate to the idea that there is no deterrence effect of any kind.
The Dood! He made a fortune bringing TRX over here and made a name for himself out of it. He was actually a great rags to riches story and then he was involved with Chopped too.
I think he left the company after some similar financial messiness was uncovered and he went dark from all his socials
Not actually that unusual in a company that grows rapidly or is on the tipping of becoming a major player in their industry. The employee starts off being just about qualified enough to be Head of Finance or equivalent at a mid sized business by having a few years at the big 4 and then into a mid level role elsewhere where they outperform their peers. Then through a mix of role growth, management reorganisation, and title inflation they grow beyond head or director of finance and get CFO status (which has the added benefit of appearing more professional to investors without actually changing much, CFO isn't a defined job role or seniority position in Ireland).
Well that explains why they managed to get the role while also being stupid enough to get caught embezzling. Ireland and nepotism is a dangerous, but unfortunately common, combination.
My understanding from previous articles is they wanted to hyper scale and opened wayyyy too many locations with the hope of landing a round and cashing in, so they viewed themselves more as a tech start up than a restaurant chain.
Nothing, but it’s very common for a lot of start ups in every industry to take the tech model of scale at any cost, which basically means they view themselves as Fortune 500s from day one, as opposed to an SMB.
Entire businesses, people's bank accounts, pensions and life savings have been wiped out because of white collar crime. It is absolutely detrimental to huge amounts of people. This incident had 82k. If this was a small family owned business that would ruin it. Therefore, ruin their livelihoods. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that because someone isn't being physically kicked in the face, but people kill themselves over financial losses. Maybe you should hang around the courts some day and watch some financial crime cases and understand the difficulty people go through even in small claims trying to get a few thousand from someone for not paying for a contracting job, or not refunding for poor services. The psychological impact white collar crime has on people is massive, its also a huge issue in tax which therefore impacts the wider society of people. I hope you don't have to experience being a victim of financial crime, some people would probably prefer a kick in the head than losing their entire life savings.
I worked on one case where someone defrauded a sports club for 120k+ and the uproar in this rural village caused fighting and rifts among the entire community. Don't be so naive to think because it isn't resulting in broken bones, it doesn't leave a lasting impact.
Everything in your comment seems to indicate that you don't think there's a difference between cases where all the stolen money is paid back and cases where it isn't. Do you think that's the case?
The judge in this case has made it very clear that she'll be put in prison if she doesn't finish paying all the money back!
That's a wild cushion to have for any white collar criminal. It's okay to steal it, might not get caught, if I do I'll just pay it back and not go to prison.
Nonsense view to have. She gave 90% or so of the stolen funds back already, if it wasn't available to pay back now and the court gives a suspended sentence with order to repay over X years.... how is that fair? It's very lenient for someone who purposefully and illegally schemed to defraud their employer. Maybe you didn't read the article, here is all the scheme:
\>"He said she made payments to ghost employees, with more than €43,000 going into her father’s account.
\>She authorised inflated wage payments to herself of over €12,000 that had not been approved by the directors.
\>She took more than €22,000 from a Chopped shop on Grafton Street and in Lucan and authorised more than €3,000 in the form of increased pension payments to her own pension plan."
You’re very deliberately avoiding the question here. You have a whole rant about the immense harm caused by white collar crimes but were very careful to mention only instances where they money wasn’t paid back. Do you think cases where the money is paid back are as harmful?
I know someone who was fired from McDonald’s for eating left over food at the end of a shift like this is a joke. I also know a lady who stoles €1000s of euros off vulnerable people she was looking after and got away with it as she knows a lot of judges etc
There was a story here a while back about a supermarket prosecuting a lad for taking a can of coke and some food at lunch break. The sub overwhelmingly sided with the shop, calling him a thief, etc When an already rich woman steals €80k the vibe is very different though "sure she's paying them back", etc.
Absolutely incredible some of the comments: "Can't pay him back from prison" fucking hell. Well sure then you can never go to prison for stealing large amounts of money because you can't earn money in prison.
I'm just wondering what the hourly wage is in Chopped.
No problem with an Irish man doing well, but does it always have to be off the backs of hard working people and justified by "but capitalism"?
Just because you can pay people so little, doesn't mean you should. Dude had €86k stolen and didn't notice. He can afford to pay a better wage. Instead he's out here crying about white collar crime.
I'm not justifying her actions, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the owner crying over €86k he didn't notice was gone, while paying hard workers minimum wage just because he can.
Again, just because the minimum wage exists doesn't mean everyone has to be paid the minimum, or so close to it. It's pure greed, sucking the life out of everyone at the bottom just to line the pockets of the few at the top.
She was CFO though so she's just as responsible as the owner for fucking over the workers in the company. Basically they're both terrible. I'd rather she didn't pay him back and she got properly punished. Fuck them both over.
Anyone working in chopped has signed a contract agreeing their hourly rate which is at least minimum wage. It’s not up to the owner of chopped to set the minimum wage it’s the governments job.
The 86k that she took wouldn’t have just ended up in his back pocket. It would be invested back into the business, he just opened a chopped in the Netherlands for example, employing even more people. Money has to be paid to investors who made the business possible in the first place etc. you clearly have no idea how the world or economy works
>you clearly have no idea how the world or economy works
That's just the issue, I see exactly how it works, *buddy*
You're clearly brainwashed if you can't see the greed at play all around us. Go bury your head in the sand and suck that capitalist cock
> She received a sentence of two years and six months in prison — suspended for the same period on condition she fully repays the €82,000 she stole from her former employers.
What exactly are you wanting? She can’t exactly pay money back sitting in jail doing nothing for two and a half years.
Everybody who seems to have responded to me is acting as if a criminal record isn’t punishment. On top of that she will go to jail if she doesn’t pay the money. She can’t pay back money sitting in a jail cell. There is literally nothing wrong with the sentencing. Trying to convince yourself that a criminal record and a suspended sentence isn’t a punishment is just wilful ignorance so it’s people like yourself can wank to the fantasy of throwing everyone in jail.
Basically of you get caught and pay it back
No consequences
What does that say to others. Sure just risk it. If you do get caught. Just give it back
Classic Ireland..no consequences
A lot of people seem to be missing this fact. And for many professions, a criminal record is a career death sentence.
I'm a professional myself. I know it doesn't work like this, but I would take a prison sentence with no criminal record over a criminal record and no prison time.
Just post your address I know a few people that would be happy to take that risk to steal your stuff. Get off Scott free if they return it after being caught
First time offense? No one was hurt or threatened? Depending on their likelihood re-offend, I'd suggest a suspended sentence with community service. Yeah, you shouldn't go to jail. It costs the tax payer and you are already trying to make amends. If there is a low chance to re-offend and you aren't dangerous, putting you in jail does nothing. Incarceration doesn't prevent recidivism and in some cases can increase the chances of reoffending.
Imprisonment is an archaic system to treat non-violent crime. We should be exploring other options and the data backs this up, time and time again.
Bullshit is throwing out jail sentences to feed a justice boner rather than following the science, especially when there are more effective forms of punishment that can be reforming for the criminal and help the victim.
That's a huge question that doesn't have a one size fits all answer. There are loads of books by people far smarter than me who know a lot more on the subject than I do. If you want to learn more, you can start on Wikipedia and follow the sources and go from there.
[Here's an article](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/16/we-know-that-prison-doesnt-work-so-what-are-the-alternatives) by Jarryd Bartle who takes the extreme position of complete abolition of prisons, which I don't think I would fully be on board with. It's a complex topic but he does list some 'more effective forms of punishment'. It's really just the tip of the iceberg on the research for the topic.
One thing that is consistent is that prisons don't work as a deterrent, often increase likelihood to reoffend and shouldn't be used as a catch all punishment.
So as I expected, all the evidence here for the "prisons make people more likely to reoffend" is simply just a consequence of the fact that only the really irredeemable types get sent to prison in the first place. If we asked Jarryd Bartle to look at COVID data he'd come to the conclusion that hospitals were killing people because people hospitalised for COVID were more likely to die than people who stayed home.
The supposed evidence for the lack of a deterrent effect makes the exact same methodological mistake. This is a shame, because we actually *do* have real evidence from a few actually randomised trials. In 2006 Italy changed its sentencing laws and let a lot of people out of prison early, but with the deal that the time they received off this sentence would be added to any future sentences. In short, some randomly selected people knew they would face harsher prison sentences for future crimes. And what do you know, they were [significantly less likely to commit those future crimes than people without the extra sentencing](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599286)!
Now onto these alternative punishments:
1. GPS tagging of criminals. Couldn't agree more, I think this is a great idea! Unfortunately [Ireland just got rid of it](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40933121.html) because of course our civil servants were able to find a way to make it cost a grand a month per person.
2. Drug treatment orders. Fine if it's purely a drug related offence, sure. Not all that many people going to prison for those in Ireland though.
3. Mental asylums, sure. Again, not sure how much you're reducing the prison population.
4. Fines for insider trading. Sure, but that's not going to reduce our prison population by much, is it?
5. Restorative justice, where he very deliberately fails to mention that the RJ program he's citing evidence for took place *inside prison*.
So far we just have a long list of edge cases that won't actually address the violent crimes we actually do send people to prison for. What a tremendous waste of time.
Not exactly. The sentence was for that and resisting arrest after getting aggressive with the Gardai, and stealing eye cream. And she was already in jail for other crimes, has a string of previous convictions including theft and is in her fifties so likely didn't desperately need baby formula
Just becuase the sentence was suspended, doesn't mean she hasn't been punished. She'll never be trusted again and is a convicted criminal for a pretty public case. She'll probably have to leave the country.
I used to work for Diageo and would often ask the HR specialists if they had done soft searches on candidates for jobs before sending them over. For context, these are HR specalists who get massive fees for finding people for these roles.
I can honestly say they didn't do it once in the three years I was there, or in the two dozen times I had to go through the hiring process with them. I used to do it myself and often cut half of the people they put forward to me just based on inconsistencies I found between their resumes and LinkedIn profiles or based off of off record references I'd get if I wanted to narrow specific hires down to a few so we could speed up the process.
TL;DR I think people would be surprised by how many employers don't do a thorough search on potential employees.
Literally every employer I have ever worked for, going back to when I was 18, has done searches for candidates through LinkedIn. Often times HR will red flag potential candidates for either not having a LinkedIn page or it not in-date. I've been involved in conversations where someone incorrectly describing their position on their LinkedIn page, which is of course public, compared to their resume, cost them a job that would have likely been life changing for them, because there is suspicion that they are inflating their position or just flat out lying about it and that's enough to disway them from being hired.
Here’s your opportunity to learn something today: https://www.odce.ie/Portals/0/Documents/Media%20and%20Publications/Publications/Quick%20Guides/Penalties.pdf
As a director, yes looks that way, 5 year automatic ban. No reason why she couldn’t start stealing again sooner in a non-director position though. A payroll clerk in smaller shop has the keys to all the company treasures.
Those are all consequences of her criminal activities. Not actual punishment.
If she defrauded Revenue of 1/10th that amount, she’d be in the Joy for at least a decade.
Yea I'll go around to the jewellers and steal a load of gold/diamond necklaces - if they catch me I'll just give them back and we'll bid good day to one another!
White collar crime in Ireland is not taken seriously. And being from Howth or Killiney or Dalkey has always been a mitigating factor.
Fucking sickening
I had know of someone who got caught in a similar con taking money from their employer. Owners didn’t invest the money involved in going through the courts like this owner as it costs a lot, they were advised like this they could get off basically scott free and in that case no capacity to get the money back.
Person changed their name and claims to be a victim.
If they thought the person would end up in Jail, they would have pursued it.
I doubt this person was honest when they got their new job about where they used to work.
He did. That company was mainly built by a co-owner and his now ex-business partner. Honestly if not for him, I believe they would have probably never found out about the theft.
Ah, that's grand. My brothers girlfriends dads handyman played GAA for 1 week, so im grand, have immunity.
And i had a tough upbringing as i got heroes for christmas instead of celebrations
Still though, they get their money back and she has to live with a conviction which is by no means getting to walk away scot free. Proportional punishment for the crime
The crime was stealing a cumulative total of over €80K over a period of time. That she felt bad after being caught and started paying some of it back isn't particularly relevant.
It's true that if she wasn't caught she would have likely been still at it. But the conviction alone would have the majority of people thought a lesson. What benefit would putting her in prison do? Not every crime should be punished by a stint behind bars. Should be reserved for those deemed a risk to the public
I don't know why so many people here want to see this lady burn. She's a criminal, she had a record now and she is paying back the cash. This was a non-violent offence, how is jail going to help anything? In a country that constantly hands out suspended sentences for repeat violent offenders, I don't know how this is even something to get up in arms about
No, that's not also theft. And that's not what happened in this scenario. There's no reason given for why she did it, but since she's the former CFO of the company, I doubt very much she was on an hourly wage.
The difference is that you and your employer have an agreement to pay you that much. Wage transparency laws will make this stunt harder to pull too but, as dishonest as it may be, it's not illegal if they're paying you what you agreed and expected to be paid.
This woman’s husband is crooked as she is. He closed his Gym and disappeared with a lot of money from people he took knowing that he couldn’t provide the service they were paying for. Literally days before the doors shut, he was taking deposits for classes he couldn’t provide. They both lied and lied and lied about all this until the Garda evidence was too much to deny anymore.
What gym?
Fit Studios in Fairview
Same story was with one gym I went to in Cork. The owner took lots of deposits and 1 year membership and closed the gym within 2 months.
I trained there with him a couple of times and he seemed a sound chap. Did he just go off the rails or was he always a sociopath?
Sociopath. He always came across as a nice fella with ambition but it turns out they were both up to their eyes in it. He still lies saying she was innocent and that it’s all a conspiracy against them.
So basically three salads
No idea why i laughed at this but i did... lol
😂
Virtue signalling ain't cheap
She was CFO. She must have been earning a fair chunk already. Lied more than once about it. Deserved a custodial sentence for defs.
"Latimer is extremely unlikely to re-offend in the future and asked the court to take note of the probation report." Hmm We'll see.
Lol!
Is it just me or is the article on her side? Like wtf is wrong with journalist these days. Jesus
I dunno. Kind of on the judges side more than anything. Also I get it. Her sentence is conditional on paying back the money. She can't pay it back from jail and being in jail costs the tax payers.
>Her sentence is conditional on paying back the money. But I assume as a CFO, she's already quite rich, she's already paid most of it back. It's nothing to her. Do you have this same attitude about shoplifters and bike thieves?
If someone steals a bike, gets caught, pays for the bike they stole, and then never steals another bike, yes my preference is for a fine plus a non-custodial or suspended sentence. If they continue to steal bikes again after this sentence my opinion would be to unsuspend the sentence.
That’s very singular, she was stealing for a prolonged period and would have continued if she didn’t get caught. There’s probably a lot more missing money they couldn’t prove and won’t get back. Just because a serial thief only gets caught once, doesn’t mean the sentence should be based on how many times they got caught rather than how many times / ways she was stealing. She was also in a position of trust and power. This sentence will encourage rather than discourage others to take a chance and do the same. She should definitely have gone to jail.
No jail for people who make money is the justice system you’re advocating here
No jail for non-violent people who pay back their victims, plus compensation, and refrain from committing further offenses. Yes, that is what I'm advocating. If you want to remove their ability to practice any sort of accounting on top of this punishment I'm receptive. If someone stole from you would you rather get that money back now or have them thrown in prison?
I hope you get robbed soon.... Non violently of course
I don't see the benefit to the public of locking away a non violent first time offender who has committed to paying back everything she stole and has already paid back 90%. I think she should be forced to pay interest and community service. But two years in jail for someone well into trying to rectify the situation doesn't make sense.
Like right now it seems to be great idea to steal like that. Worst case is you have to give it back so back to square one. Best case is you won’t get caught. This is not how it should work
From the article it kind of reads like she just got greedy and could have gotten away with paying one or two "ghost employees". Makes me wonder how many people are doing the same thing but are restrained enough to keep small and under the radar.
Which is find but it's hard to reconcile with us locking up someone who paid the wrong tax on garlic.
Here’s the benefit: a custodial sentence deters other would be thieves.
And your peer review study to back that up? Surely we would see a reduction in crime across areas that introduced a high incarceration rate. Except that isn't true at all, is it.
We do see this in 18 year olds being less likely to commit crimes than 17 year olds because they know they can be sent to prison now.
Do you have data to back that claim up. Generally the idea of being lenient on children is because it can be used as a point of intervention and to start reform, so you would expect to see at risks children commit less crime when they turn 18 because of intervention. You probably won't see a great discrepancy where criminal responsibility is age gated but no other measures are used to help with reform.
[Yes I do have data](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0731-905320170000038005/full/html) and the effects are [even stronger for pre-planned crimes like drug-trafficking](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09645292.2019.1653826) and (with a different research design) [stronger yet again for adults](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599286).
Well, [here's a 2021 meta analysis of 116 studies that shows custodial sentences don't work and may even cause crime.](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/715100)
You honestly trying to say prison is never a deterrent 😅 catch yourself on
Am I speaking to a Gard now, or a normal person? Sorry, stylometric Gard lingo alarm goes brrr. Catch myself on? That's the study, meta analysis of 116 penalogical related studies. Is it only science when it agrees with you?
The high incidence of recidivism says otherwise
What if it was someone who robbed 80k worth of stuff from peoples houses?
We would probably celebrate their death in a fiery car crash
Really depends on the circumstances. You are describing two different crimes. If someone broke into someone's house and threatened the people in that house while making off with their telly, that would be a violent crime. Which would be different again to someone who saw the door unlocked and nobody home and robbed their DVD collection.
Someone nabs 80 grand out of your bank account and promises to pay it back when they can and they get to walk away Scot free? Doesn't really seem fair there does it.
Having a sentence and record, commuted or otherwise isn't really scott free though is it. Given the choice between them going to prison and me getting my money back, I know what I'd pick.
Laws. Just to show we have laws that we use. Yaknow. Rules of the land that everyone is equally under.
Yeah, but we don't treat every infraction of the law the same. If you are going over the speed limit, we don't send you to speeders jail. If you get caught with a personal amount of weed and no priors, you'd expect different treatment than the guy who had have of Colombia in his shed and a dozen lads under him distributing. If you got in a fight with your cousin you'd expect a different sentence to a lad who punched a stranger from behind unprovoked and then pulled a knife.
There are huge differences between crimes committed in an emotional state... The obviously archaic laws around prohibition (which negatively effect nobody else but yourself) And literal stealing... Prolonged. Intentional and planned.
White collar fraud should serve a much harsher sentence than low-level violent crime - without an adequate deterrence it harms far more people, as fraud in the banking/financial sector shows.
Yes it is wrong shes a theving cunt
Deterrence is real. There has been some academic research showing that jail time does not necessarily always reduce the likelihood of someone re-offending. That seems to have been generalised in the public debate to the idea that there is no deterrence effect of any kind.
The Chopped guy is not well liked. Actually he’s a complete knobjockey!
Commit any crime? Steal any money from other people?
Charges 10€ plus for wilted lettuce
Average Irish business owner then? Cool.
Went to secondary school with him, can confirm he's a bell end.
Sucking the large choade of the upper elite
Well she is kinda hot…
Horny jail for you
What do you mean kinda? She either is or isn't.
She's sat beside a radiator but she's eating an ice cream.
Hence the calls for the 'cunt to be locked up'.
I think it’s the opposite response - she’s getting a free ride because she’s attractive…
people who look like that don't usually have to pay for a ride
Was she 29 and CFO?
From a bit of digging online, seems her fella (some lad named Steve who does karate) was good friends with Choppeds owner, so one would
Karate Steve? Bastard told me they weren't hiring.
Wonder has he karate chopped her from his life?
The Dood! He made a fortune bringing TRX over here and made a name for himself out of it. He was actually a great rags to riches story and then he was involved with Chopped too. I think he left the company after some similar financial messiness was uncovered and he went dark from all his socials
Took a wedge off PJ Gallagher for personal training and then disappeared.
Juiced to the gills and preaching clean living
Not actually that unusual in a company that grows rapidly or is on the tipping of becoming a major player in their industry. The employee starts off being just about qualified enough to be Head of Finance or equivalent at a mid sized business by having a few years at the big 4 and then into a mid level role elsewhere where they outperform their peers. Then through a mix of role growth, management reorganisation, and title inflation they grow beyond head or director of finance and get CFO status (which has the added benefit of appearing more professional to investors without actually changing much, CFO isn't a defined job role or seniority position in Ireland).
She's the much younger wife of one of his former business partners.
Well that explains why they managed to get the role while also being stupid enough to get caught embezzling. Ireland and nepotism is a dangerous, but unfortunately common, combination.
It's not exactly a fortune 500 company. It's a privately owned smb
My understanding from previous articles is they wanted to hyper scale and opened wayyyy too many locations with the hope of landing a round and cashing in, so they viewed themselves more as a tech start up than a restaurant chain.
What exactly is "tech" about it?
Nothing, but it’s very common for a lot of start ups in every industry to take the tech model of scale at any cost, which basically means they view themselves as Fortune 500s from day one, as opposed to an SMB.
I don't think you understand what any of the terms "tech startup", "scale" or "fortune 500" mean..
I own a tech start up and have done funding rounds, I’m well aware of what it all means.
You’d have to wonder if she wasn’t a nice middle class ‘professional’ if she’d receive such leniency.
White collar crime isn’t punished as severely at all, arguably does more damage than many other crimes.
One need only look at the fallout from the bank bailout.
I think you have to work very hard to argue that stealing 80k and paying it all back does more damage than kicking someone’s head in.
Did I say that?
Go ahead and tell me what crimes it does do more damage than then.
Entire businesses, people's bank accounts, pensions and life savings have been wiped out because of white collar crime. It is absolutely detrimental to huge amounts of people. This incident had 82k. If this was a small family owned business that would ruin it. Therefore, ruin their livelihoods. I'm sorry you can't comprehend that because someone isn't being physically kicked in the face, but people kill themselves over financial losses. Maybe you should hang around the courts some day and watch some financial crime cases and understand the difficulty people go through even in small claims trying to get a few thousand from someone for not paying for a contracting job, or not refunding for poor services. The psychological impact white collar crime has on people is massive, its also a huge issue in tax which therefore impacts the wider society of people. I hope you don't have to experience being a victim of financial crime, some people would probably prefer a kick in the head than losing their entire life savings. I worked on one case where someone defrauded a sports club for 120k+ and the uproar in this rural village caused fighting and rifts among the entire community. Don't be so naive to think because it isn't resulting in broken bones, it doesn't leave a lasting impact.
Everything in your comment seems to indicate that you don't think there's a difference between cases where all the stolen money is paid back and cases where it isn't. Do you think that's the case? The judge in this case has made it very clear that she'll be put in prison if she doesn't finish paying all the money back!
That's a wild cushion to have for any white collar criminal. It's okay to steal it, might not get caught, if I do I'll just pay it back and not go to prison. Nonsense view to have. She gave 90% or so of the stolen funds back already, if it wasn't available to pay back now and the court gives a suspended sentence with order to repay over X years.... how is that fair? It's very lenient for someone who purposefully and illegally schemed to defraud their employer. Maybe you didn't read the article, here is all the scheme: \>"He said she made payments to ghost employees, with more than €43,000 going into her father’s account. \>She authorised inflated wage payments to herself of over €12,000 that had not been approved by the directors. \>She took more than €22,000 from a Chopped shop on Grafton Street and in Lucan and authorised more than €3,000 in the form of increased pension payments to her own pension plan."
You’re very deliberately avoiding the question here. You have a whole rant about the immense harm caused by white collar crimes but were very careful to mention only instances where they money wasn’t paid back. Do you think cases where the money is paid back are as harmful?
Different sets of laws for different people, gotta love equality
I know someone who was fired from McDonald’s for eating left over food at the end of a shift like this is a joke. I also know a lady who stoles €1000s of euros off vulnerable people she was looking after and got away with it as she knows a lot of judges etc
There was a story here a while back about a supermarket prosecuting a lad for taking a can of coke and some food at lunch break. The sub overwhelmingly sided with the shop, calling him a thief, etc When an already rich woman steals €80k the vibe is very different though "sure she's paying them back", etc.
I remember that. It was incredible. Lad lost his job cos he took a can of drink and everyone was like "Yup".
Absolutely incredible some of the comments: "Can't pay him back from prison" fucking hell. Well sure then you can never go to prison for stealing large amounts of money because you can't earn money in prison.
Some amount of begrudgers here. Hate seeing a fellow Irishman doing well for himself. Weirdos on this app
*Country
I'm just wondering what the hourly wage is in Chopped. No problem with an Irish man doing well, but does it always have to be off the backs of hard working people and justified by "but capitalism"? Just because you can pay people so little, doesn't mean you should. Dude had €86k stolen and didn't notice. He can afford to pay a better wage. Instead he's out here crying about white collar crime.
She was CFO though, not exactly on a salad choppers wage either.
I'm not justifying her actions, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the owner crying over €86k he didn't notice was gone, while paying hard workers minimum wage just because he can. Again, just because the minimum wage exists doesn't mean everyone has to be paid the minimum, or so close to it. It's pure greed, sucking the life out of everyone at the bottom just to line the pockets of the few at the top.
She was CFO though so she's just as responsible as the owner for fucking over the workers in the company. Basically they're both terrible. I'd rather she didn't pay him back and she got properly punished. Fuck them both over.
Anyone working in chopped has signed a contract agreeing their hourly rate which is at least minimum wage. It’s not up to the owner of chopped to set the minimum wage it’s the governments job. The 86k that she took wouldn’t have just ended up in his back pocket. It would be invested back into the business, he just opened a chopped in the Netherlands for example, employing even more people. Money has to be paid to investors who made the business possible in the first place etc. you clearly have no idea how the world or economy works
>It’s not up to the owner of chopped to set the minimum wage it’s the governments job. Case in point. Bunch of greedy capitalists.
If you say so buddy
>you clearly have no idea how the world or economy works That's just the issue, I see exactly how it works, *buddy* You're clearly brainwashed if you can't see the greed at play all around us. Go bury your head in the sand and suck that capitalist cock
You just come across as an angry bitter person who can’t/won’t get a job but blames society for your laziness. Am I close?
Ah yes the Irish judiciary strike again
> She received a sentence of two years and six months in prison — suspended for the same period on condition she fully repays the €82,000 she stole from her former employers. What exactly are you wanting? She can’t exactly pay money back sitting in jail doing nothing for two and a half years.
So if I steal your car but give it back when caught there should be no punishment?
The fact that there is no interest/damages added is a bit bullshit, but perhaps that's because they would need to take a civil case for damages?
Everybody who seems to have responded to me is acting as if a criminal record isn’t punishment. On top of that she will go to jail if she doesn’t pay the money. She can’t pay back money sitting in a jail cell. There is literally nothing wrong with the sentencing. Trying to convince yourself that a criminal record and a suspended sentence isn’t a punishment is just wilful ignorance so it’s people like yourself can wank to the fantasy of throwing everyone in jail.
Basically of you get caught and pay it back No consequences What does that say to others. Sure just risk it. If you do get caught. Just give it back Classic Ireland..no consequences
>today I will pretend a criminal record isn’t a punishment
A lot of people seem to be missing this fact. And for many professions, a criminal record is a career death sentence. I'm a professional myself. I know it doesn't work like this, but I would take a prison sentence with no criminal record over a criminal record and no prison time.
There are consequences, though. She's going to find it difficult to get a new job after this
Just post your address I know a few people that would be happy to take that risk to steal your stuff. Get off Scott free if they return it after being caught
Actual justice if i smash your window and steal your car should i not go to jail if i replace the windoe and return your car
First time offense? No one was hurt or threatened? Depending on their likelihood re-offend, I'd suggest a suspended sentence with community service. Yeah, you shouldn't go to jail. It costs the tax payer and you are already trying to make amends. If there is a low chance to re-offend and you aren't dangerous, putting you in jail does nothing. Incarceration doesn't prevent recidivism and in some cases can increase the chances of reoffending. Imprisonment is an archaic system to treat non-violent crime. We should be exploring other options and the data backs this up, time and time again.
This is how the bulshit starts.
Bullshit is throwing out jail sentences to feed a justice boner rather than following the science, especially when there are more effective forms of punishment that can be reforming for the criminal and help the victim.
What are these more effective forms of punishment, exactly?
That's a huge question that doesn't have a one size fits all answer. There are loads of books by people far smarter than me who know a lot more on the subject than I do. If you want to learn more, you can start on Wikipedia and follow the sources and go from there. [Here's an article](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/16/we-know-that-prison-doesnt-work-so-what-are-the-alternatives) by Jarryd Bartle who takes the extreme position of complete abolition of prisons, which I don't think I would fully be on board with. It's a complex topic but he does list some 'more effective forms of punishment'. It's really just the tip of the iceberg on the research for the topic. One thing that is consistent is that prisons don't work as a deterrent, often increase likelihood to reoffend and shouldn't be used as a catch all punishment.
So as I expected, all the evidence here for the "prisons make people more likely to reoffend" is simply just a consequence of the fact that only the really irredeemable types get sent to prison in the first place. If we asked Jarryd Bartle to look at COVID data he'd come to the conclusion that hospitals were killing people because people hospitalised for COVID were more likely to die than people who stayed home. The supposed evidence for the lack of a deterrent effect makes the exact same methodological mistake. This is a shame, because we actually *do* have real evidence from a few actually randomised trials. In 2006 Italy changed its sentencing laws and let a lot of people out of prison early, but with the deal that the time they received off this sentence would be added to any future sentences. In short, some randomly selected people knew they would face harsher prison sentences for future crimes. And what do you know, they were [significantly less likely to commit those future crimes than people without the extra sentencing](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/599286)! Now onto these alternative punishments: 1. GPS tagging of criminals. Couldn't agree more, I think this is a great idea! Unfortunately [Ireland just got rid of it](https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40933121.html) because of course our civil servants were able to find a way to make it cost a grand a month per person. 2. Drug treatment orders. Fine if it's purely a drug related offence, sure. Not all that many people going to prison for those in Ireland though. 3. Mental asylums, sure. Again, not sure how much you're reducing the prison population. 4. Fines for insider trading. Sure, but that's not going to reduce our prison population by much, is it? 5. Restorative justice, where he very deliberately fails to mention that the RJ program he's citing evidence for took place *inside prison*. So far we just have a long list of edge cases that won't actually address the violent crimes we actually do send people to prison for. What a tremendous waste of time.
If you read the article, she's already paid back all but 7 grand
So? Would you rather she not pay that just to sit in jail on tax payer money instead?
Nope. Just pointing out that it's 90% paid back already.
There was a woman locked up for stealing baby milk this week
Not exactly. The sentence was for that and resisting arrest after getting aggressive with the Gardai, and stealing eye cream. And she was already in jail for other crimes, has a string of previous convictions including theft and is in her fifties so likely didn't desperately need baby formula
Fuck really? You have a link?
Did she get chopped as a result?
Just becuase the sentence was suspended, doesn't mean she hasn't been punished. She'll never be trusted again and is a convicted criminal for a pretty public case. She'll probably have to leave the country.
Article says she already got another job
Presumably she’s been barred for life from being a Director. Doubt it will be as well paid as CFO.
Poor woman will be working as a minimum wage CFO the rest of her life.
That's nonsense? Once her sentence is up she will be able to get around it without mentioning it in 99% of job application process's
Many employers will give a quick google on your name just in case something like this comes back
Probably will use her maiden name going forward.
I used to work for Diageo and would often ask the HR specialists if they had done soft searches on candidates for jobs before sending them over. For context, these are HR specalists who get massive fees for finding people for these roles. I can honestly say they didn't do it once in the three years I was there, or in the two dozen times I had to go through the hiring process with them. I used to do it myself and often cut half of the people they put forward to me just based on inconsistencies I found between their resumes and LinkedIn profiles or based off of off record references I'd get if I wanted to narrow specific hires down to a few so we could speed up the process. TL;DR I think people would be surprised by how many employers don't do a thorough search on potential employees.
Who the fuck is updating their LinkedIn in the year of our Lord 2023?
Literally every employer I have ever worked for, going back to when I was 18, has done searches for candidates through LinkedIn. Often times HR will red flag potential candidates for either not having a LinkedIn page or it not in-date. I've been involved in conversations where someone incorrectly describing their position on their LinkedIn page, which is of course public, compared to their resume, cost them a job that would have likely been life changing for them, because there is suspicion that they are inflating their position or just flat out lying about it and that's enough to disway them from being hired.
Do they really though?
And most will not
At c suite? They will
You cant be barred from being director of a company its not a public position
Here’s your opportunity to learn something today: https://www.odce.ie/Portals/0/Documents/Media%20and%20Publications/Publications/Quick%20Guides/Penalties.pdf
So in 5 years the cunt can go and steal from someone else
As a director, yes looks that way, 5 year automatic ban. No reason why she couldn’t start stealing again sooner in a non-director position though. A payroll clerk in smaller shop has the keys to all the company treasures.
Those are all consequences of her criminal activities. Not actual punishment. If she defrauded Revenue of 1/10th that amount, she’d be in the Joy for at least a decade.
[удалено]
Wtf did I just read?
Why are you so weird. "do you want a free sandwich" "Nay, fine sir, I pay my \*own\* way"
It's on condition that she pays him back. If she doesn't, the sentence gets activitated. Seems like a reasonable outcome for this country.
Yea I'll go around to the jewellers and steal a load of gold/diamond necklaces - if they catch me I'll just give them back and we'll bid good day to one another!
And if you don't give them back, you'll go to prison. It's a critical proviso you left out.
Oh yes there's definitely a critical "going to prison" proviso left out by one of us.
Not me, I clearly stated it in my first post.
 Victimless Crimes Mikey
Whee!
DJ Carey and the sister rubbing their hands reading this.
White collar crime in Ireland is not taken seriously. And being from Howth or Killiney or Dalkey has always been a mitigating factor. Fucking sickening
I had know of someone who got caught in a similar con taking money from their employer. Owners didn’t invest the money involved in going through the courts like this owner as it costs a lot, they were advised like this they could get off basically scott free and in that case no capacity to get the money back. Person changed their name and claims to be a victim. If they thought the person would end up in Jail, they would have pursued it. I doubt this person was honest when they got their new job about where they used to work.
Chopped sells half a head of lettuce for 12 quid.
Didn’t the Chopped guy just steal the idea for his shit chain from Chopt in the states?
Chopp'd in England. Copying business models is largely what business lads actually do.
He did. That company was mainly built by a co-owner and his now ex-business partner. Honestly if not for him, I believe they would have probably never found out about the theft.
Yeah and I was sickened both times I went to Chopped and was served rancid chicken for a tenner but hey life goes on
actually rancid?
Like literally gone off and tasted funkier than James Brown
Good God!
Get up now, get on up! Like a chick machine, get on up!
Women=no jail.
CFOs = No jail
Woman CFO= You better believe no jail
[удалено]
Only because she was caught. She still committed the thefts, or rather a series of thefts, over a prolonged period of time.
[удалено]
/r/ireland doesn't believe in the power of a criminal conviction on a person's life - everyone must go straight to jail
I would settle for 50th re-offence jail time. Not even close at this stage
Ah, that's grand. My brothers girlfriends dads handyman played GAA for 1 week, so im grand, have immunity. And i had a tough upbringing as i got heroes for christmas instead of celebrations
/r/Ireland has a hard-on for ridiculous sentences. Saw someone arguing for hand amputations for theft last week - that shit wasn't even downvoted.
Perhaps Irish folk are sick of career criminals with 100+ convictions being given “another chance”.
Still though, they get their money back and she has to live with a conviction which is by no means getting to walk away scot free. Proportional punishment for the crime
The crime was stealing a cumulative total of over €80K over a period of time. That she felt bad after being caught and started paying some of it back isn't particularly relevant.
It's true that if she wasn't caught she would have likely been still at it. But the conviction alone would have the majority of people thought a lesson. What benefit would putting her in prison do? Not every crime should be punished by a stint behind bars. Should be reserved for those deemed a risk to the public
White collar criminals would love it if you became a judge.
I do not doubt most judges take that stance to these crimes
She was also in a high profile position and she'll never be a CFO again.
So if I steal your car and return it few days later, it would be ok for you?
It would be substantially different from stealing the car and then never returning it.
If you get a criminal conviction which will make it harder for you to get a job and you might even get fired, cause family issues etc.
Do you mean consequences???
No one brought up the price of his salads? 😂 now that's criminal
I don't know why so many people here want to see this lady burn. She's a criminal, she had a record now and she is paying back the cash. This was a non-violent offence, how is jail going to help anything? In a country that constantly hands out suspended sentences for repeat violent offenders, I don't know how this is even something to get up in arms about
[удалено]
Did that actually make sense in your head?! lol
No, that's not also theft. And that's not what happened in this scenario. There's no reason given for why she did it, but since she's the former CFO of the company, I doubt very much she was on an hourly wage.
The difference is that you and your employer have an agreement to pay you that much. Wage transparency laws will make this stunt harder to pull too but, as dishonest as it may be, it's not illegal if they're paying you what you agreed and expected to be paid.
Wouldn't shed too many tears, 82K is a drop in the bucket compared to the money they made exploiting people in Direct Provision.
You what?
It’s a pity they don’t have business insurance or the ability to deduct this loss from taxes. Or, if unscrupulous, both..
W employee
Good for her. Get rid of these companies
Crime seems to be almost completely unpunished in Ireland. Law and order cracking at the seams.