CliveH Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Considering the hoops we have to go through with clients who simply want to open an ISA for example - this regarding what HSBC got up to is especially galling. Well done to the Yanks for sorting the debacle out. The FSA will fine HSBC on the same issue separately. ........................... "HSBC, which had been alleged to have helped launder money belonging to drug cartels and countries under US sanctions, will pay a total of $1.92bn to settle US investigations and anticipates making a separate settlement with the FSA "shortly". .......................... Can the reputation of our banks get any lower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankkia Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 "Can the reputation of our banks get any lower?" Yes - they could have a politician on their board of directors - Oops too late - some of 'em have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Looks promising, "BUT" will any fine be paid by the bank's directors or the customer/tax payer? The Serious Fraud Office has made three arrests as part of its investigation into the manipulation of the interbank lending rate, Libor. Its statement read: "Today the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), with the assistance of the City of London Police, executed search warrants at three residential premises" - one in Surrey and two in Essex. "Three men, aged 33, 41 and 47, have been arrested and taken to a London police station for interview in connection with the investigation into the manipulation of Libor." It concluded: "The men are all British nationals currently living in the United Kingdom." The SFO's criminal inquiry began in July when it decided existing legislation gave it the scope to bring potential prosecutions. While the identities of those arrested and their employers are not known at this stage, it is known that the SFO's inquiry has been wide-ranging and not limited to Barclays - the only UK bank so far to have been fined in connection with the scandal. The £290m penalty inflicted on Barclays and subsequent public outrage preceded the departure of its chief executive Bob Diamond and forced the British Bankers' Association to signal it would abandon its responsibility for oversight of Libor amid a clamour for reform. Libor, which stands for London interbank offered rate, affects more than £350 trillion in global transactions and the rates created through the submissions bear a heavy influence in the calculation of a host of financial products, including mortgages. The City regulator the Financial Services Authority (FSA) has been working closely with the SFO in its investigation. A review of Libor by the FSA's boss Martin Wheatley has suggested a new body be created to oversee Libor with the rate being based more on actual trades rather than just banks' own estimates. Around 20 financial institutions have been investigated world-wide over alleged rigging. Taxpayer-backed Royal Bank of Scotland has previously said it hopes to settle any claims over Libor manipulation soon and warned that potential penalties could be significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The tax payers have another tab to pick up :D............ Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM) - the state-owned part of the defunct lender - is to refund a total of £270m to customers. The bank will pay an average of £1,775 to each affected customer after failing to disclose information in documents and letters in 2008. The Chancellor told Parliament that 152,000 customers who had loans below £25,000 were affected and blamed "an error originating in 2008 when Northern Rock was in public ownership". "Some customers with certain types of mainly unsecured personal loans were not given all the mandatory information in their statements which they were entitled to by law," George Osborne added. The chief executive of UK Asset Resolution - NRAM's holding company - Richard Banks said: "We are determined to do the right thing for customers and the taxpayer. "We will be writing to all customers who are affected and advising them on next steps." Northern Rock was split into two separate companies in 2010 – Northern Rock plc, which was sold to Virgin Monday earlier this year, and NRAM. At the height of the financial crisis, the troubled bank was forced to rely on funding from the Bank of England to keep it from collapsing Treasury Economic Secretary Sajid Javid said the refunds are "likely to increase public sector net borrowing for 2012/2013." But he added that they are "not expected to delay materially" the timings of NRAM's repayment of £19.6bn Government funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 IMO, fines against a plc should be levied first against dividends, and if those are insufficient, by forced sale of assets, so that they as nearly as possible hit only the shareholders. The shareholders own the company, and they appoint the directors, so they are the responsible parties. If they were made to take the stick, instead of it ultimately being handed to the customers, we should get better directors, who in turn would appoint better managers, and so on down, and we should also get far sharper shareholder supervision over how their hired hands run their businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Fully agree Brian, but ain't never going to happen - at least, not until we fix the "shareholder is king" mentality of our company law. As for HSBC - my first job when I left school was with the (then) Midland Bank, and my uncle spent all his working life with them. It was a VERY upright and conservative (small c) establishment back then. He'll be turning in his grave now. Bunch of crooks - along with most of those who run the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 Agree Tony - I remember when each branch had its own manager who actually knew you. Then came the vast redundancies of such managers and the introduction of call centres and the like. At that point - the "Banks" collectively stopped seeing their customers as people who should be treated well and saw them as mugs to be ripped off. All counter staff became the dodgiest of all sales staff and the result is the various sales scandals we now see. What is especially worrying in this latest development is that HSBC in particular not only saw fit to break the rules re its customers - BUT also saw fit to break sensible rules and even the law regarding the money laundering of drug money and other criminal activities. Yo have to ask yourself the question - if they did that - what hope in hell has the average person in the street got of getting a fair deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 This just in:- HSBC to spend $700m after 'stunning failures' 11 Dec 2012 | 17:33 Laura Miller,Nick Paler Categories: Regulation Topics: Hsbc | Fsa HSBC will spend $700m over the next five years in an attempt to tackle money laundering after it was lambasted by US authorities and fined $1.9bn yesterday. The bank said in a statement it had undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of its structure, controls, and procedures following an agreement with the US Department of Justice. HSBC said in its statement it had: "commenced a review of all Know Your Customer files across the entire Group - the first phase of this remediation will cost an estimated US$700m over five years." It comes after the bank was found to have inadequate procedures in place to prevent money laundering. US authorities said they had seen "dangerous practices" at HSBC which allowed the bank to pass money to "drug kingpins and rogue nations". It was also fined $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in total. According to the BBC, US Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said in a statement: "HSBC is being held accountable for stunning failures of oversight - and worse - that led the bank to permit narcotics traffickers and others to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through HSBC subsidiaries." As part of its deal with the US and the UK's Financial ServicesAuthority (FSA), Britain's biggest bank said it will improve its money laundering safeguards. HSBC must establish a committee of the HSBC Board with a mandate to oversee matters relating to anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing. It must review relevant group policies and procedures to ensure that all parts of the HSBC group conform to UK standards. It will also need to appoint a group money laundering reporting officer who will be an FSA approved person, with responsibility for ensuring systems and controls are in place across the group, to ensure the group is in compliance with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements. An independent monitor will need to be appointed to oversee the group's compliance with UK anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing requirements and to provide independent reporting to the HSBC Board committee and regulators. ................................ Will it do any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 Too little a tad too late! "The FSA, as lead regulator for the HSBC Group globally, is taking action in relation to issues in respect of HSBC’s compliance with anti-money laundering rules and US sanctions requirements. The FSA has worked closely with the relevant US authorities and this action is separate to, but coordinated with the actions taken by them. Yesterday HSBC were fined $1.9bn by US regulators as a result of their compliance failures, although the Department of Justice recognised the efforts to rectify the mistakes and prevent issues with compliance in the future. The FSA has made a number of requirements of HSBC which are designed to ensure that all parts of the HSBC Group are in compliance with relevant legal and regulatory requirements to prevent similar failings occurring in the future. The FSA requires HSBC to: - Establish a committee of the HSBC Board with a mandate to oversee matters relating to anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing; - Review relevant Group policies and procedures to ensure that all parts of the HSBC Group are subject to standards equivalent to those required under UK requirements; - Appoint a Group Money Laundering Reporting Officer who will be an FSA approved person, with responsibility for ensuring that systems and controls are in place across the Group, to ensure the Group is in compliance with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements; and - Employ an independent monitor to oversee the Group’s compliance with UK anti-money laundering, sanctions, terrorist financing and proliferation financing requirements and to provide independent reporting to the HSBC Board committee and regulators. Through its supervision, the FSA will take steps to ensure that HSBC complies with these measures. These measures are in addition to the requirements of the Cease and Desist order issued by the Federal Reserve Board and the Deferred Prosecution Agreement issued by the US Department of Justice on 11 December 2012. .............................. The laugh going round is that when it says it is "working closely" with US regulators - the FSA actually means it is doing what it is supposed to have been doing all along but needed a kick from the US to do so. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Dont you lot be too hard on poor old HSBC, that's my bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 peter - 2012-12-13 4:51 PM Dont you lot be too hard on poor old HSBC, that's my bank. It's just as well they've got wealthy customers like you Peter............... to help pay their fines ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Can't trust the banks to launder your money anymore. Why not contact us. We use a dry process and you money will be returned to you perfectly laundered, scented, germ free and freshly pressed. Very reasonable rates. Can't see what all the problem is about. I always thought our service was perfectly legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ....................and not a grain of cocaine can be detected on the notes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 pelmetman - 2012-12-13 6:36 PM peter - 2012-12-13 4:51 PM Dont you lot be too hard on poor old HSBC, that's my bank. It's just as well they've got wealthy customers like you Peter............... to help pay their fines ;-)Not wealthy Dave, just shrewd. (which is a posh word for tight) :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 peter - 2012-12-14 5:27 PM pelmetman - 2012-12-13 6:36 PM peter - 2012-12-13 4:51 PM Dont you lot be too hard on poor old HSBC, that's my bank. It's just as well they've got wealthy customers like you Peter............... to help pay their fines ;-)Not wealthy Dave, just shrewd. (which is a posh word for tight) :D I think screwed would be a more appropriate word Peter. >:-( Are there any banks that you can now trust ? :-( Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 I have always felt that Nationwide is one of the better options - not a Bank but a B Soc. - and all the better for that. Jeff Prestridge - a journo of good credentials that did an awful lot to uncover the debacle of the FSA's role in the Equitable Life Scandal says this about them http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2109730/JEFF-PRESTRIDGE-Cant-companies-follow-Nationwides-lead-complaints.html I really do feel as someone who works in Finance that Nationwide do try hard to get it right. the above article endorses that view. Only thing to watch out for is that they are nor a clearing bank as so cheques can take up to 7 days to clear - which can be a pain. But with a bit of planning is manageable. Many of the other smaller B Socs are worth looking at. Melton Mowbray came out quite well recently. My advice is to steer well clear of non UK banks as rarely do you get the same level of investor protection - often having to deal with the home nations regulator before the FSCS here in the UK will consider your case. Worse one to deal with on any level at the moment is ICICI Bank - based in India - a great country to invest in via cumulative investments such as Unit Trusts et al - they effectively spread the risk but JHC! - do not put your money on deposit with them whatever the idiots on some websites say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.