• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Rogue welfare office Brian King (16 months) v Malaysia disability cheat Pullen (0), defended by S.F.'s R. Mac Aodháin


Eric Cartman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,741
Rogue welfare office Brian King (16 months) v Malaysia disability cheat Pullen (0), defended by S.F.'s R. Mac Aodháin

Here is an interesting case into differential sentencing regimes. Brian King a welfare officer from Dún Laoghaire conducted a scam whereby he systematically defrauded the Dept of up to €17,000.

Welfare office worker jailed for stealing nearly

A former senior civil servant has been jailed for 16 months for defrauding the taxpayer out of nearly €17,000.
Brian King (48) was managing the Social Welfare Office in Dún Laoghaire when he purposely overpaid 25 welfare recipients before contacting them and saying the overpayment had been a mistake. He demanded they return the overpaid amount and then stole it for himself.
The scam occurred over a one-year period and came to light when the Department of Social and Family Affairs received a tip-off in an anonymous letter. King has since been fired.

<Mod> Please do not post copyright-protected material to the site. </Mod>
Next up we have Raymond Pullen, 31 of Ringsend (I wonder is he a relative of Donnycarney nuisance neighbours Carol & Laurence Pullen?).

Ex-addict in

A man who fraudulently lived off disability benefits for almost two years in Malaysia where he quit drugs, got married and started a family has been given suspended jail terms totalling 12 months.

<Mod> Please do not post copyright-protected material to the site. </Mod>
The cases have some similarities:

  • King immediately admitted guilt and despite initial denials, Pullen entered an early guilty plea
  • Both have family difficulties: King's elderly, now deceased mother and Pullen's deceased addict brother
  • Bother were addicts: King, a compulsive gambler and Pullen a heroin addict
  • Similar amounts of money involved
  • Only real victim was the State (some inconvenience caused to King's welfare customers)
  • Both will repay the amounts involved (pension and welfare payments, respectively)
Nevertheless, Brian King got a 16 month custodial sentence. Why?

Liberals argue that "prison doesn't work", but this man has been jailed though I am not aware of any crusade to set him free. I guess people instinctively have little sympathy for a welfare officer.

King was brought in for interview, where he made immediate admissions, saying he had a serious gambling problem. Garda Tracey accepted this and told the court that betting slips were found in his office.
None of the money has been repaid but there is a procedure in place where the Department can reclaim the money from King’s pension when it matures.
Defence counsel Sean Guerin BL said his client lived at home with his parents and that his mother was very ill at the time which added to his stress. She has since passed away.
Garda Tracey agreed with counsel that King was “glad to be caught” and that he is unlikely to reoffend.
Mr Guerin added the social welfare recipients did not lose any money and that the Department was the only victim.
People possibly have less sympathy for a heroin addict, however not only has Pullen avoided jail (given a suspended sentence totally 12 months), he is back in Ireland and still receiving welfare benefits. Unbelieveable.

Sinn Féin's Ruadhán Mac Aodháin (electoral candidate in 2011 election in Dublin South East and presumably, Dublin Bay South) is a defence barrister and defended him.

When evidence was heard in February, Judge Early was told that the Department of Social Protection is deducting €20 a week from his benefits, and he has repaid €450.

<Mod> Please do not post copyright-protected material to the site. </Mod>
I think the fact that he is a heroin addict is quite apart from the fact. There must be consistency in sentencing and it's not right that one individual gets 16 months and another a suspended sentence for substantively similar crimes. The word of the local drug rehabilitation centre helped him get off his deserved custodial sentence, unfortunately there was no similar institution to defend Brian King.

And Pullen still receives benefits, albeit reduced. At the rate of €20 per week, that amount will be paid off in 16 years. Basically, it is no punishment at all. (I wonder what Brian Kings' pension will be deducted?) Oh and Pullen has brought his family here too, so we have the privilege for looking after them too. Deport them all back to Malaysia.

I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
Here is an interesting case into differential sentencing regimes. Brian King a welfare officer from Dún Laoghaire conducted a scam whereby he systematically defrauded the Dept of up to €17,000.

Welfare office worker jailed for stealing nearly



Next up we have Raymond Pullen, 31 of Ringsend (I wonder is he a relative of Donnycarney nuisance neighbours Carol & Laurence Pullen?).

Ex-addict in



The cases have some similarities:

  • King immediately admitted guilt and despite initial denials, Pullen entered an early guilty plea
  • Both have family difficulties: King's elderly, now deceased mother and Pullen's deceased addict brother
  • Bother were addicts: King, a compulsive gambler and Pullen a heroin addict
  • Similar amounts of money involved
  • Only real victim was the State (some inconvenience caused to King's welfare customers)
  • Both will repay the amounts involved (pension and welfare payments, respectively)
Nevertheless, Brian King got a 16 month custodial sentence. Why?

Liberals argue that "prison doesn't work", but this man has been jailed though I am not aware of any crusade to set him free. I guess people instinctively have little sympathy for a welfare officer.



People possibly have less sympathy for a heroin addict, however not only has Pullen avoided jail (given a suspended sentence totally 12 months), he is back in Ireland and still receiving welfare benefits. Unbelieveable.

Sinn Féin's Ruadhán Mac Aodháin (electoral candidate in 2011 election in Dublin South East and presumably, Dublin Bay South) is a defence barrister and defended him.



I think the fact that he is a heroin addict is quite apart from the fact. There must be consistency in sentencing and it's not right that one individual gets 16 months and another a suspended sentence for substantively similar crimes. The word of the local drug rehabilitation centre helped him get off his deserved custodial sentence, unfortunately there was no similar institution to defend Brian King.

And Pullen still receives benefits, albeit reduced. At the rate of €20 per week, that amount will be paid off in 16 years. Basically, it is no punishment at all. (I wonder what Brian Kings' pension will be deducted?) Oh and Pullen has brought his family here too, so we have the privilege for looking after them too. Deport them all back to Malaysia.

I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.
I read the case of that Pullen bloke, in fairness to him, he cost the state no more money than had he remained in Ireland. He looked after himself and became drug free.

He only claimed a few quid off an EU vassal state, hardly crime of the century.
 

Al Gebra

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
6,023
I don't think either should have been jailed. I think there are more productive ways of punishing people for money related crimes. Jail should be primarily for violent criminals.
It's a little ironic that a person should be jailed for costing the state money since it costs the state to keep these guys in prison.
 

Rural

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
27,927
Firstly, I will qualify what I am about to type with this - Anyone who is not a danger to society should not get a custodial sentence. there should be more community service sentences.

Mr. King was employed by the Civil Service as a HEO and was in a position of trust, by his staff, the Department and the clients, he betrayed that trust and using a larger workload as a defense is no defense in the present climate (ask any nurse out there). But I do believe that he should be helped with the gambling problem and help is free if he is sent in the right direction, he has lost his job and is humiliated, sending him to jail is not a solution.

Mr. Pullen was a complete chancer/addict, but I would also blame the Department on this one. Long ago if someone was claiming Disability, they had to be seen every few months by a Department appointed doctor to see if the disability was still genuine. Also, putting money like this straight into a claimant's account is asking for trouble, sending a cheque to an Irish address would solve that. I also don't think he is a danger to society.
 

Eric Cartman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,741
I read the case of that Pullen bloke, in fairness to him, he cost the state no more money than had he remained in Ireland. He looked after himself and became drug free.

He only claimed a few quid off an EU vassal state, hardly crime of the century.
Not my responsibility to look after him, that leech is still mooching state resources in benefits that should be taken away from him. We need to lease South Georgia from the Brits and transplant the moochers over there.
 
B

Boggle

Firstly, I will qualify what I am about to type with this - Anyone who is not a danger to society should not get a custodial sentence. there should be more community service sentences.

Mr. King was employed by the Civil Service as a HEO and was in a position of trust, by his staff, the Department and the clients, he betrayed that trust and using a larger workload as a defense is no defense in the present climate (ask any nurse out there). But I do believe that he should be helped with the gambling problem and help is free if he is sent in the right direction, he has lost his job and is humiliated, sending him to jail is not a solution.

Mr. Pullen was a complete chancer/addict, but I would also blame the Department on this one. Long ago if someone was claiming Disability, they had to be seen every few months by a Department appointed doctor to see if the disability was still genuine. Also, putting money like this straight into a claimant's account is asking for trouble, sending a cheque to an Irish address would solve that. I also don't think he is a danger to society.
Very true. We still need a mechanism for justice for no-violent/dangerous offenders but prison space should be reserved exclusively for locking up people who represent a real risk to others.

Tag them, place them under house arrest or in min-security type prisons by all means but lets allocate state money to keeping people safe.
 

Rural

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
27,927
I wonder if some Judges play for the baying mob and others try to be controvertial. No-one was injured or killed in either of these cases and both men were a bit dim, thinking that they were not going to get caught.

Whoever sent the anonymous letter regarding the Welfare Officer was good, but the person in the Department who ran with it, was great.

I'd say the Central Bank got many such letters over the past 20 years which were ignored (I worked in a bank 20 years ago, so I know).
 

NewGoldDream

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
20,929
Website
-
I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.
In fairness, and it's not often I defend SF, but his political affiliations have nothing to do with his work and vice versa.

If Barristers started turning down work on the basis that those pleading to criminal charges are...well, criminals, that kinda would lead to a strange situation. He is entitled to representation, he got it.

Furthermore, I think the person in the position of responsibility and trust should get a tougher penalty than the person who is opportunist.
 

Prester Jim

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
10,071
Here is an interesting case into differential sentencing regimes. Brian King a welfare officer from Dún Laoghaire conducted a scam whereby he systematically defrauded the Dept of up to €17,000.

Welfare office worker jailed for stealing nearly



Next up we have Raymond Pullen, 31 of Ringsend (I wonder is he a relative of Donnycarney nuisance neighbours Carol & Laurence Pullen?).

Ex-addict in



The cases have some similarities:

  • King immediately admitted guilt and despite initial denials, Pullen entered an early guilty plea
  • Both have family difficulties: King's elderly, now deceased mother and Pullen's deceased addict brother
  • Bother were addicts: King, a compulsive gambler and Pullen a heroin addict
  • Similar amounts of money involved
  • Only real victim was the State (some inconvenience caused to King's welfare customers)
  • Both will repay the amounts involved (pension and welfare payments, respectively)
Nevertheless, Brian King got a 16 month custodial sentence. Why?

Liberals argue that "prison doesn't work", but this man has been jailed though I am not aware of any crusade to set him free. I guess people instinctively have little sympathy for a welfare officer.



People possibly have less sympathy for a heroin addict, however not only has Pullen avoided jail (given a suspended sentence totally 12 months), he is back in Ireland and still receiving welfare benefits. Unbelieveable.

Sinn Féin's Ruadhán Mac Aodháin (electoral candidate in 2011 election in Dublin South East and presumably, Dublin Bay South) is a defence barrister and defended him.



I think the fact that he is a heroin addict is quite apart from the fact. There must be consistency in sentencing and it's not right that one individual gets 16 months and another a suspended sentence for substantively similar crimes. The word of the local drug rehabilitation centre helped him get off his deserved custodial sentence, unfortunately there was no similar institution to defend Brian King.

And Pullen still receives benefits, albeit reduced. At the rate of €20 per week, that amount will be paid off in 16 years. Basically, it is no punishment at all. (I wonder what Brian Kings' pension will be deducted?) Oh and Pullen has brought his family here too, so we have the privilege for looking after them too. Deport them all back to Malaysia.

I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.
The social welfare officer was undoubtedly worse.
He blackmailed people on the dole for money he trapped them into owing and kept the money himself.
The worst thief is the one who steals off the poor.
Scum.
 

seanmacc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
1,022
I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.
So is Mr. MacAodhain not supposed to work? Is he not supposed to work to the best of his ability when representing scumbags? Part of being in the legal profession is sometimes taking on unpalatable cases. Lots of election candidates over the years have been solicitors, barristers, social workers, drug outreach workers ect ect. These are jobs where they have to deal with scumbags whether they like it or not. If anything this is a positive reflection on Mr. MacAodhain's professional ability.

BTW he was the barrister on the Pearse Doherty case against the government.
 

Sense 0f Wonder

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
2,508
Surely the reason why Pullen avoided a custodial sentence is because he has learning difficulties? (Sufficient to receive disability allowance. And sufficient to reduce, at least to some extent, his culpability. I don't know, just guessing.)

The welfare officer on the other hand was just dumb. Here's a man in full control of his faculties, a fully cognizant of his position of responsibility, who constructs an elaborate ruse to exploit the fears of welfare recipients.

I imagine Pullen just saw the money coming into his account and thought he could wing it, not being fully cognizant of the potential legal consequences, and possibly his learning difficulties made it difficult --if not impossible-- for him to understand rights and responsibilities in relation to the receipt of social welfare.

Being on heroin wouldn't have helped either. But seriously, major kudos should go to a guy with learning difficulties who went to the far side of the world in the aftermath of his brother's death and got himself off heroin. That took some courage.
 
Last edited:

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,671
I read the case of that Pullen bloke, in fairness to him, he cost the state no more money than had he remained in Ireland. He looked after himself and became drug free.

He only claimed a few quid off an EU vassal state, hardly crime of the century.
You are joking? Despite having defrauded this country of almost €17k, he's making minimal repayments of €20 a week, and he's continuing to claim benefits. Where's the disincentive for this guy not to commit sw fraud in the future?
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
You are joking? Despite having defrauded this country of almost €17k, he's making minimal repayments of €20 a week, and he's continuing to claim benefits. Where's the disincentive for this guy not to commit sw fraud in the future?
How much less would he have cost had he remained in Ireland?

Yes, technically it is fraud, but its hardly the most serious case i've read of, not by along shot. 17k is an absolute pittance, in actuality the only breach of the conditions was that he was not resident in the country. It barely warrants a newspaper article.

Im all for reform of the welfare state etc, but his crime doesnt even approach the seriousness of the welfare officers fraud.
 

GabhaDubh

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
2,247
Hopefully, solicitor MacAodain will not be legal consul to the bankers.
 

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,671
How much less would he have cost had he remained in Ireland?

Yes, technically it is fraud, but its hardly the most serious case i've read of, not by along shot. 17k is an absolute pittance, in actuality the only breach of the conditions was that he was not resident in the country. It barely warrants a newspaper article.

Im all for reform of the welfare state etc, but his crime doesnt even approach the seriousness of the welfare officers fraud.
Ah come on - technically fraud - it was blatant and downright fraud! He wasn't resident in Ireland - he was over in Malaysia living it up compliments of the Irish taxpayer. He was suppose to be unfit for f/t work, so how did he support himself and his new wife while he was over in Malaysia? Was he in paid employment anytime during his residency in Malaysia? DA wouldn't have covered all those costs. He underwent a drug treatment programme, how did he fund that? Presumably he was fit for f/t work after coming off the heroin - that's another condition he broke. This wasn't a case of him being unable to return to Ireland following a two week holiday which is another condition he broke. Pullen made a conscious choice to defraud this state rather than closing his claim. DA is a means tested payment. Was his wife working? Did he declare her earnings? Nope.

As for the sw employee he deserved to be imprisoned. I wonder how long Brian King was working in the public service for and whether he accrued any pension entitlements? Remember that case where a departmental employee was caught selling information to a PI who was passing on that information to three insurance companies. Is that employee still working in the Dept and why oh why has nobody including the PI been prosecuted? One would wonder wouldn't you....
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
Ah come on - technically fraud - it was blatant and downright fraud! He wasn't resident in Ireland - he was over in Malaysia living it up compliments of the Irish taxpayer. He was suppose to be unfit for f/t work, so how did he support himself and his new wife while he was over in Malaysia? Was he in paid employment anytime during his residency in Malaysia? DA wouldn't have covered all those costs. He underwent a drug treatment programme, how did he fund that? Presumably he was fit for f/t work after coming off the heroin - that's another condition he broke. This wasn't a case of him being unable to return to Ireland following a two week holiday which is another condition he broke. Pullen made a conscious choice to defraud this state rather than closing his claim. DA is a means tested payment. Was his wife working? Did he declare her earnings? Nope.

As for the sw employee he deserved to be imprisoned. I wonder how long Brian King was working in the public service for and whether he accrued any pension entitlements? Remember that case where a departmental employee was caught selling information to a PI who was passing on that information to three insurance companies. Is that employee still working in the Dept and why oh why has nobody including the PI been prosecuted? One would wonder wouldn't you....
I think you missed the point of my arguement, I am in no way suggesting that he did not commit fraud, I am merely stating that there are far more serious cases of welfare fraud and indeed fraud in general. If it were a case of him claiming benefits under multiple identities and defrauding the state of hundreds of thousands of euro(I believe there was a case recently) then It might be newsworthy.

It was reported because it is an interesting story, not because of the seriousness of the crime, which was at the lower end of the scale. having said that his rate of repayment on what he owes should be increased, and community service of some description should be required.
 
Last edited:

Zach Dingle

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
665
What a clown Brian King was! He engaged in a senseless petty fraud. If he bidded his time, he would have become like most in his privileged public servant a little Lotto winner legally and at our expense again!
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
Here is an interesting case into differential sentencing regimes. Brian King a welfare officer from Dún Laoghaire conducted a scam whereby he systematically defrauded the Dept of up to €17,000.

Welfare office worker jailed for stealing nearly



Next up we have Raymond Pullen, 31 of Ringsend (I wonder is he a relative of Donnycarney nuisance neighbours Carol & Laurence Pullen?).

Ex-addict in



The cases have some similarities:

  • King immediately admitted guilt and despite initial denials, Pullen entered an early guilty plea
  • Both have family difficulties: King's elderly, now deceased mother and Pullen's deceased addict brother
  • Bother were addicts: King, a compulsive gambler and Pullen a heroin addict
  • Similar amounts of money involved
  • Only real victim was the State (some inconvenience caused to King's welfare customers)
  • Both will repay the amounts involved (pension and welfare payments, respectively)
Nevertheless, Brian King got a 16 month custodial sentence. Why?

Liberals argue that "prison doesn't work", but this man has been jailed though I am not aware of any crusade to set him free. I guess people instinctively have little sympathy for a welfare officer.



People possibly have less sympathy for a heroin addict, however not only has Pullen avoided jail (given a suspended sentence totally 12 months), he is back in Ireland and still receiving welfare benefits. Unbelieveable.

Sinn Féin's Ruadhán Mac Aodháin (electoral candidate in 2011 election in Dublin South East and presumably, Dublin Bay South) is a defence barrister and defended him.



I think the fact that he is a heroin addict is quite apart from the fact. There must be consistency in sentencing and it's not right that one individual gets 16 months and another a suspended sentence for substantively similar crimes. The word of the local drug rehabilitation centre helped him get off his deserved custodial sentence, unfortunately there was no similar institution to defend Brian King.

And Pullen still receives benefits, albeit reduced. At the rate of €20 per week, that amount will be paid off in 16 years. Basically, it is no punishment at all. (I wonder what Brian Kings' pension will be deducted?) Oh and Pullen has brought his family here too, so we have the privilege for looking after them too. Deport them all back to Malaysia.

I really have to ask in the wisdom of Sinn Féin running a barrister that defends thieve and social criminals like Raymond Pullen. I don't want to bailout bankers and so forth but I like thieving scumbags even less. And Sinn Féin defends them.


1. Everyone is entitled to a defence. That's why lawyers act for murderers and rapists. It would be unethical to refuse taking on work based on personal bias. It is unethical to run a case by having your client lie, so if he admits to you that he is guilty, you cannot allow him onto the stand to perjure himself. Note that both pleaded guilty.

2. This was a barrister doing his job, not Sinn Féin defending anyone.

3. You are an idiot.




D
 

Eric Cartman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,741
I think you missed the point of my arguement, I am in no way suggesting that he did not commit fraud, I am merely stating that there are far more serious cases of welfare fraud and indeed fraud in general. If it were a case of him claiming benefits under multiple identities and defrauding the state of hundreds of thousands of euro(I believe there was a case recently) then It might be newsworthy.

It was reported because it is an interesting story, not because of the seriousness of the crime, which was at the lower end of the scale. having said that his rate of repayment on what he owes should be increased, and community service of some description should be required.
Pullen should've had his benefits stopped entirely. It's a very serious crime and a large amount of money. I would like €17,000 thanks. He stole that from me and my taxes, as did King. I don't really see how King committed a greater fraud, we are talking about the same amount of money. He should've lost his pension!!

There's no justice in this country, be it banks unprosecuted, public servants accountable and rampant welfare fraud.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,745
Of course the lovely mr. pullen coming as he does from Ringsend is D4!
 
Top