Harry Cassidy, the former Chief Executive of Custom House Capital (CHC), who is currently serving a jail term for his part in a scheme that defrauded investors out of €61m over a decade ago, has lodged an appeal against his sentence. Cassidy claims the authorities were incorrect in assigning a preliminary sentence of 14 years. Cassidy, 68, from Clon Brugh, Aitkens Village, Stepaside, Dublin, admitted to collaborating with others to swindle CHC investors, clients and customers. The offences took place from October 1, 2008, till July 15, 2011.
During the sentence hearing, 197 impact statements from victims were presented. CHC clients detailed the financial setbacks they faced and the emotional and psychological repercussions they and their families endured in the past decade. In May last year, Judge Orla Crowe in Dublin Circuit Court, while pronouncing Cassidy’s sentence, initially mentioned a term of 14 years, but later reduced it to seven years, factoring in mitigating circumstances. For the two-month period he was held in custody in Germany, Cassidy was given credit, resulting in an actual sentence of six years and 10 months.
Judge Crowe stated that the victims had been deliberately deceived in an elaborate scheme that spanned over two years, carried out by those responsible for their fiduciary duties. In her words, the crime committed was “highly egregious” and constituted a “severe violation” of trust and duty, especially due to the involvement of pension funds.
During the appeal at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Cassidy’s counsel, Hugh Hartnett SC, stated that a strategic decision was made back then to rob Peter to pay Paul, hoping that the situation would eventually rectify itself.
He made it clear that this act differed from embezzlement cases where funds were solely diverted for personal advantage or to maintain a certain lifestyle.
The argument was made that ethical considerations were not significantly factored into the court’s ruling. It was suggested that the headline sentence of 14 years was incorrect, arguing that anything above 10 years was not appropriate. State representatives, however, defended the sentencing, insisting there were no mistakes made, and highlighted the almost 50 per cent reduction given to the final sentence by the judge was significantly lenient in the given situation.
In regard to the case against Harry Cassidy, State counsel Lorcan Staines SC stressed that the impact of his scheme had been unprecedented nationally. He noted the 202 victims that had come forward to deliver statements in court, a selection of whom were in attendance during the appeal hearing.
The appeal panel of three was told by Mr Hartnett that it was inappropriate to arbitrarily decide on a 14 year sentence. He expressed a need for the reference to be rooted to transparent principles, such as previous cases, or related to legislation. The judge was also accused by Mr Hartnett of issuing a disproportionate sentence considering sentences meted out in similar cases, including that of the appellant’s co-defendant. It was argued that the sentence was extreme, unjust, overly punitive and oppressive given the circumstances.
State counsel Staines argued that the considered offences’ maximum sentence was life imprisonment. He defended the trial judge’s task of selecting a penalty within the range of ‘zero to life imprisonment’, taking into account mitigating factors. It was argued that the case could not have fallen under any category other than the top end of the available range.
Additionally, Mr Hartnett contended that the judge did not adequately consider several mitigating circumstances, including Cassidy’s declining health and advancing age. It was noted that Cassidy was undergoing medical examinations for cancer at the time of sentencing, and since then, has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cassidy is currently receiving related treatment in prison.
Cassidy, who had lost his family residence and was compelled to file for bankruptcy, lost his financial management career too. Mr Hartnett noted that when Cassidy leaves prison, he won’t be able to pursue his preferred career in finance, marking a major setback. Prior to being imprisoned, Cassidy was an online foreign language teacher making approximately €24,000 per year, according to Mr Hartnett.
Mr. Hartnett argued that the court didn’t properly consider the evidence showing that Cassidy’s actions were driven by the aim of saving and securing the funds invested in Custom House Capital. He stressed that when an individual is striving to rescue a business, some leniency should be shown. Mr Hartnett compared Cassidy’s case with that of the Anglo Irish Bank which had been implicated in deceit that led to serious economic consequences for the country.
To support his argument, Mr Hartnett mentioned several similar cases linked to Anglo, notably the one involving its ex-CEO David Drumm, who served a prison term for a €7.2 billion banking fraud. In Drumm’s case, an original eight-year sentence was reduced to six years considering mitigating factors. Mr Hartnett said these factors are present in Cassidy’s case as well, along with others including his poor health, advanced age, and guilty plea.
However, Mr. Staines noted clear differences between Cassidy’s case and those of Anglo cited by Mr Hartnett. He highlighted that the Anglo case involved artificially inflated balance sheets which were misleading to investors, while this case involves tangible money affecting real people, big and small alike, resulting in significant hardship.
Judgement was deferred by Mr Justice John Edwards, along with Ms Justice Tara Burns and Mr Justice Michael MacGrath.