Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mikhail Liebenstein

Using British Law To Jail All The Bankers

Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_enterprise_law

In the usual way of British Law, this legal approach to making a group of people guilty for the specific crime of one member of the group has mainly been used against young Black British Kids where one has carried and perhaps used a knife.

I now postulate that this law should be used against bankers.

Quite clearly the banking system is fraudulent, and companies like Northern Rock, RBS etc were being run whilst bankrupt and were also engaged in what is essentially a giant ponzi.

Using joint enterprise we should now charge and arrest all senior bankers and ex-senior bankers even where their direct action in the crime can't be unpicked from the web of what is quite clearly a fraud.

Then using the proceeds of crime act, their assets should then be seized.

We have the legal power, we just need the police and judiciary to be bothered to enforce it ( and the politicians not to pass any retrospective law protecting the bankers).

PS - I also believe this law could be used in relation to the phone hacking scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first problem is the use of the word "fraudulent"

Where does one decide that a banker is being fraudulent.

The money mulitplier, which is clearly part of their system, is a fraud, but in law its not, as there are laws that make it not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're valuing sovereign debt assets using methods that are in violation of IASB standards

http://www.ifrs.org/NR/rdonlyres/949CAE0C-3E3B-4F64-9F1D-53B491458880/0/LettertoESMA4August2011.pdf

There have been indications in the market that some European companies are applying the accounting requirements for fair value measurement and impairment losses in a way that seems to differ from the objective of IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement. This is evident particularly in their accounting for distressed sovereign debt, including Greek government bonds. Those indications have now been confirmed by recently published financial reports, which show inconsistent application of IAS 39 across Europe. This is a matter of great concern to us....

Even when a model is used to measure fair value, that model must reflect current market conditions (including those as evidenced by observable transaction prices) and it should include appropriate adjustments that market participants would make for credit and liquidity risks. Furthermore, the model must maximise the use of relevant observable inputs (eg market data) and minimise the use of unobservable inputs (eg the company’s own assumptions). A company cannot ignore relevant market data (including observable transaction prices) when it is clear that market participants would use that data in determining the price at which they would be willing to enter into a transaction for the financial asset.

This is important because under various laws, it is illegal for companies to trade while insolvent. The purpose of the fraudulent valuation exercises undertaken by the banks is to hide their insolvency and continue paying themselves big f*** off bonuses trading. RBS could not payout the the £500m in bonuses to bankers (that came from taxpayers) without perpetrating this fraud.

That letter covers only sovereign debt assets. They're doing the same with other assets too.

The situation is lawless. There are laws to deal with this. They are simply not being enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're valuing sovereign debt assets using methods that are in violation of IASB standards

http://www.ifrs.org/...4August2011.pdf

This is important because under various laws, it is illegal for companies to trade while insolvent. The purpose of the fraudulent valuation exercises undertaken by the banks is to hide their insolvency and continue paying themselves big f*** off bonuses trading. RBS could not payout the the £500m in bonuses to bankers (that came from taxpayers) without perpetrating this fraud.

That letter covers only sovereign debt assets. They're doing the same with other assets too.

The situation is lawless. There are laws to deal with this. They are simply not being enforced.

well, we do have a regulator.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the ones who lied to their investors (and the public) about being solvent and liquid?

That would be fraud in my book.

I beleive the OP was talking about a mass prosecution for being a part of the system.

Of course, individual frauds are being ignored here and in the US...I mean what happened to that really high profile guy who had a bank in the Bahamas or somewhere, bought the gane of cricket, and is just dissappeared?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, we do have a regulator.......

That doesn't mean everyone is free to do what they want without fear of criminal prosecution. When the regulator lets a few crimes "slip through the cracks", maybe time for the police to get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean everyone is free to do what they want without fear of criminal prosecution. When the regulator lets a few crimes "slip through the cracks", maybe time for the police to get involved.

I agree, but there is a difference, the regulator regulates the conduct of the firm.

If the police come in, the firm pleads the regulator OK'd it all. Banks and firms do the same with Auditors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the police come in, the firm pleads the regulator OK'd it all. Banks and firms do the same with Auditors.

Yes, but an Auditor actively observes each company in some detail and then signs things off.

The Regulator cannot be expected to investigate every scheme running in every company all the time. There is no implicit agreement that something is legal and permissible just because the regulator hasn't picked a bank up on it. Even then, sometimes regulators fail or become corrupt. In which case, the police are the next step (in the UK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but an Auditor actively observes each company in some detail and then signs things off.

The Regulator cannot be expected to investigate every scheme running in every company all the time. There is no implicit agreement that something is legal and permissible just because the regulator hasn't picked a bank up on it. Even then, sometimes regulators fail or become corrupt. In which case, the police are the next step (in the UK).

The Police will not have the co-operation the regulator has by right of law.

But, this practice of failing to mark to model correctly, is clearly policy, and its clearly allowed by the Regulator, and then by the Revenue.

It is clear this practice has no chance of prosecution while the lawmakers themselves are complicit. The Police and then the CPS would be, in the event, powerless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the ones who lied to their investors (and the public) about being solvent and liquid?

That would be fraud in my book.

You're thinking of all the Rights Issues around 2008? And especially the fraud surrounding the poisoning of Lloyds?

p.s. Liquid solvents can be tricky. Some are volatile/inflammable, and we know the danger of dihydrogen monoxide. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, this practice of failing to mark to model correctly, is clearly policy, and its clearly allowed by the Regulator, and then by the Revenue.

What about deliberate misreporting to shareholders and depositors...

There is clearly a case to made in many areas (see earlier link for details), but there is no WILL.

That is to say, no will right now. I think that might change in the nearish future. They are nearing the point where they (the politicians) need scapegoats. I'll give you a clue, they aren't going to put themselves forward for the job.

Edited by What's'isname

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're thinking of all the Rights Issues around 2008? And especially the fraud surrounding the poisoning of Lloyds?

p.s. Liquid solvents can be tricky. Some are volatile/inflammable, and we know the danger of dihydrogen monoxide. :P

If only they were snorting H20 vapour and not Columbian marching powder, some of their decisions might have been a little better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading while insolvent is a criminal offence.

not a crime....but there is legislation that directors can become personally liable for debts runup, and may even be disqualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading while insolvent is a criminal offence.

Saying you have something you don't in order to make money is also a criminal offence.

Bankers have the lot stitched up though, they can outbid everyone else, so forget about taking them to court. The best (currently) that you can do is use simple questions to defend yourselves from them because they can't prove a great deal of what they say has occured. (Because it hasn't!)

A really simple one is to ask for a cashiers reciept for when they claim they've made a payment on your behalf.

Another one is to offer to email them what you owe if they claim PC numbers are money.

Banking is an "elephant leg" style confidence trick. When elephants are young, they are tied to a tent peg on the end of a rope. Over time they learn they can't escape that small circle and so don't try even when they are fully grown. occassionally of course, some accident might happen and an elephant finds he's been wrong all along, and the next thing you know, Tantor is on the high street smashing cars up.

Banking is the same, people have learned as children that bits of paper are valuable, that banks have cash in them and have a behavioural set that goes along with that which they operate under. They also have an entirely different set of beliefs and conceptions about the banks which cannot possibly be true which they don't operate on* but will invoke when questioned. As long as the two do not meet and cognitive dissonance is kept stable, all is well in banker land. But theres the rub, they have met and largely due to the greed of said bankers.

Tantor is currently idling outside wall street, St Pauls etc but he won't stay there long if he doesn't get more peanuts.

* a lot of the legal profession is like this also. The official line is "presumed innocent" but operationally you are always presumed guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not a crime....but there is legislation that directors can become personally liable for debts runup, and may even be disqualified.

Northern Rock was never insolvent, but it suffered a bank run. It had a poor, high risk funding model, and the funding dried up. However, it was a solvent business in that assets exceeded liabilities.

RBS had a high risk model as well, was over-leveraged and far closer to being technically insolvent. It was badly run from the top, but that does not make it criminal. There may be a crime of dangerous driving, but no such equivalent for running a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock was never insolvent, but it suffered a bank run. It had a poor, high risk funding model, and the funding dried up. However, it was a solvent business in that assets exceeded liabilities.

if any other business called money that had left the building an asset it would be closed down immediately.

RBS had a high risk model as well, was over-leveraged and far closer to being technically insolvent. It was badly run from the top, but that does not make it criminal. There may be a crime of dangerous driving, but no such equivalent for running a business.

Theres no crime of dangerous driving, there is an offence though.

All banking relies on contract fraud with it's customers. if you were going to try anywhere, go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if any other business called money that had left the building an asset it would be closed down immediately.

Absolute nonsense! If a company lends money to a bank (i.e. makes a deposit), it is classified as an asset, yet it is still money that has "left the building".

If a normal company borrows money, it is a liability on its balance sheet. Therefore, the money that has been lent must be classified as an asset - one person's liability must, by definition, be another's asset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute nonsense! If a company lends money to a bank (i.e. makes a deposit), it is classified as an asset, yet it is still money that has "left the building".

You won't find many business who understand that putting money in a bank is actually a loan.

more proof that all banking is fraud.

If a normal company borrows money, it is a liability on its balance sheet. Therefore, the money that has been lent must be classified as an asset - one person's liability must, by definition, be another's asset.

Nope.

The real world doesn't just have assets and liabilities any more than there are only two colours in the rainbow. I can't believe someone as smart as yourself has fallen for something so utterly ******ing dumb, tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't find many business who understand that putting money in a bank is actually a loan.

more proof that all banking is fraud.

Nope.

The real world doesn't just have assets and liabilities any more than there are only two colours in the rainbow. I can't believe someone as smart as yourself has fallen for something so utterly ******ing dumb, tbh.

I think that most significant businesses would understand that they are loaning the banks money and if they don't, they should!

I may not fully agree about assets and liabilities, but it is true that while a liability is always a liability, an asset is not always an asset, which is the reality behind every banking collapse there has ever been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most significant businesses would understand that they are loaning the banks money and if they don't, they should!

They certainly should because the bank shoudl tell them and make it absolutely plain that is what is occuring.

However, they don't, never have and never will (voluntarily.) As for "significant" do ****** off. most business is SME or one man band, and all you have done is make the vast majority of banking fraud (on that one point) rather than all of it.

I may not fully agree about assets and liabilities, but it is true that while a liability is always a liability, an asset is not always an asset, which is the reality behind every banking collapse there has ever been.

You don't have to agree. I'm just correct. You either line up with reality or you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock was never insolvent, but it suffered a bank run. It had a poor, high risk funding model, and the funding dried up. However, it was a solvent business in that assets exceeded liabilities.

RBS had a high risk model as well, was over-leveraged and far closer to being technically insolvent. It was badly run from the top, but that does not make it criminal. There may be a crime of dangerous driving, but no such equivalent for running a business.

you misunderstand solvency.

It means payign your bills as they become due.

The balance sheet can be 100% healthy, but if you have no cash to pay the leccy, you are insolvent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute nonsense! If a company lends money to a bank (i.e. makes a deposit), it is classified as an asset, yet it is still money that has "left the building".

If a normal company borrows money, it is a liability on its balance sheet. Therefore, the money that has been lent must be classified as an asset - one person's liability must, by definition, be another's asset.

no. " I have money..its in the bank."

Thats what everybody says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 285 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.