Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Giordano Bruno

Jail Reckless Bankers

Recommended Posts

The same should apply for politicians !!!

Bankrupting a country to try and buy an election should be met with hefty jail sentences.

On reading the thread title that was my first reaction as well.

There needs to be moral hazard for politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard this morning on the radio some guy rabbiting on about we need to jail bankers BUT we need to get new legislation passed. WHAT ?!

Fraud is already on the books, use it !

This is how they prevaricate and bury it. Lots of hand wringing, nothing will happen. They own us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how they prevaricate and bury it. Lots of hand wringing, nothing will happen. They own us.

I fear that you're probably right. Lots of noise about justice to placate the plebs, then lo and behold, sweet FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really quite amazing that even though compensation of over £10 billion has been paid for financial services that were not asked for or required - and yet not one single case of fraudulent activity has occurred.

Really quite amazing. Almost conspiracy like . . . . :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really quite amazing that even though compensation of over £10 billion has been paid for financial services that were not asked for or required - and yet not one single case of fraudulent activity has occurred.

Really quite amazing. Almost conspiracy like . . . . :rolleyes:

Embezzlement is a British speciality. Our last surviving claim to world renown. Lehman Brothers International, AIG Financial Products, RBS, Bernie Madoff - all these trillion pound rackets either originated in or were run through the City of London. In a functioning democracy with a free and independent press those responsible would have been held to account for their crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean the American jails will be full of bankers, but British gaols will be empty. Best just to send them all to prision.

Edit to add.

Gaol is an obsolescent spelling of the word now usually spelled jail. Other than the spelling, there is no difference between the words. Gaol was common outside North American until fairly recently (it was stamped out of American English in the early 19th century, and dropped out of Canadian use about a century later), but it underwent a steady decline through the 20th century and now appears only rarely. Its most common use today is in the names of jails, but it is still possible to find a few scattered instances of gaol as a common noun in recent writing. For reasons mysterious to us, it appears to be most common in Ireland and Australia.

I'm British an refuse to use American English.

Edited by Lord D'arcy Pew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who has read anything about periods of financial excess and fraud will know that they are related to periods of loose monetary policy.

Easy money, assets rise, speculation rules over yield. It requires certain behaviours to adapt to that environment and the least reputable do extremely well as the ability to catch them disappears.

And we recognise this...odd that the most regulated "industry" in the world still cant prosecute a soul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peston popped up again on tv this morning to give his opinions.

Some bizarre opinions at that; including:

Why would a young person want to consider a career in banking if it was possible they would be sent to prison for reckless/fraudulent behaviour; and

This might mean some banks/bankers move abroad. (presumably the ones that are planning to engage in reckless or fraudulent behaviour) but Peston would consider their absence to be a loss to the UK.)

The presenter asking the questions asked what the report said about capping bonuses. Peston waffled but clearly had no idea what it said.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peston popped up again on tv this morning to give his opinions.

Some bizarre opinions at that; including:

Why would a young person want to consider a career in banking if it was possible they would be sent to prison for reckless/fraudulent behaviour; and

This might mean some banks/bankers move abroad. (presumably the ones that are planning to engage in reckless or fraudulent behaviour) but Peston would consider their absence to be a loss to the UK.)

The presenter asking the questions asked what the report said about capping bonuses. Peston waffled but clearly had no idea what it said.

Y

Directors can go to prison for reckless behaviour...its called Fidudicial duty ( however its spelt) and he can become personally liable.

Fraud is a Crime

Peston is a Plank...better ensure anyone burgling his house is given proper career choices before prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blog from Dan Hodges: The banker-bashing report is the financial equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act

...But if you actually read the report itself, it becomes clear even the Commission isn’t really convinced by the idea.

Under the headline “A new criminal offence?” (the question mark is a bit of a giveaway) it tentatively states “there is a strong case in principle for a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank”. But it then adds “all concerned should be under no illusions about the difficulties of securing a conviction for such a new offence”......

Because despite what many on this forum may believe they weren't defrauding anyone nor was any individual on their own "reckless"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blog from Dan Hodges: The banker-bashing report is the financial equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act

...But if you actually read the report itself, it becomes clear even the Commission isn't really convinced by the idea.

Under the headline "A new criminal offence?" (the question mark is a bit of a giveaway) it tentatively states "there is a strong case in principle for a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank". But it then adds "all concerned should be under no illusions about the difficulties of securing a conviction for such a new offence"......

Because despite what many on this forum may believe they weren't defrauding anyone nor was any individual on their own "reckless"

Fiducial Duties:

An individual in whom another has placed the utmost trust and confidence to manage and protect property or money. The relationship wherein one person has an obligation to act for another's benefit.

A fiduciary relationship encompasses the idea of faith and confidence and is generally established only when the confidence given by one person is actually accepted by the other person. Mere respect for another individual's judgment or general trust in his or her character is ordinarily insufficient for the creation of a fiduciary relationship. The duties of a fiduciary include loyalty and reasonable care of the assets within custody. All of the fiduciary's actions are performed for the advantage of the beneficiary.

Courts have neither defined the particular circumstances of fiduciary relationships nor set any limitations on circumstances from which such an alliance may arise. Certain relationships are, however, universally regarded as fiduciary. The term embraces legal relationships such as those between attorney and client, Broker and principal, principal and agent, trustee and beneficiary, and executors or administrators and the heirs of a decedent's estate.

A fiduciary relationship extends to every possible case in which one side places confidence in the other and such confidence is accepted; this causes dependence by the one individual and influence by the other. Blood relation alone does not automatically bring about a fiduciary relationship. A fiduciary relationship does not necessarily arise between parents and children or brothers and sisters.

The courts stringently examine transactions between people involved in fiduciary relationships toward one another. Particular scrutiny is placed upon any transaction by which a dominant individual obtains any advantage or profit at the expense of the party under his or her influence. Such transaction, in which Undue Influence of the fiduciary can be established, is void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reckless" is an interesting choice of word in the "long awaited report "as it implies lack of thought / lack of intention / lack of consideration etc whereas with fraud there is usually some thought/intention/consideration somewhere along the line.

Another thing they wheeled out yet again is the whistleblower theme. Protection for whistleblowers etc etc which always gets wheeled out in these situations but their position never seems to improve. It was wheeled out all through the 80s, the 90s, the noughties and yet again now.

A lot of the stuff in the "long awaited report" is just a rehash of old reports to be binned at a suitable opportunity with a stroke of a pen - again.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Dan Hodges' article.

So if it won’t actually be possible to convict people under this new law, why recommend it? Because, the Commission claims, it “would give pause for thought to the senior officers of UK banks”. Pause for thought. So why not just make it mandatory to wear dunces' caps or go to work without trousers? That would probably give them pause for thought as well.

Sums it up. They've already read "the long awaited report" and already given it pause for thought and it's already as you were.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Dan Hodges article

But the real reason the banks ran themselves, and us, into the ground was because we asked them to. Our elected politicians weren’t demanding a strict regulatory framework, they were calling for “light-touch regulation” and a bonfire of red tape. There was a robust regulatory regime in place, and one that if necessary could have reigned in many of the excesses. But only if we’d wanted them reigned in.

And we didn’t. How many of us in the Eighties, Nineties and first years of the millennium seriously thought our banks were being run by modern-day versions of Captain Mainwaring and Sergeant Wilson? We knew all about the fast cars, and the expense account lunches and culture of risk and greed. But we didn’t give a damn so long as we kept getting our cheap mortgages and easy credit.

As the Committee acknowledges, all the regulation in the world is meaningless unless there is the political will to see it effectively enforced. But that political will is itself simply a reflection of the prevailing public mood.

It's just wrong to say that "we" asked them to run the UK or even the economy into the ground or there was some sort of accepting "mood". It's a cop out.

Maybe some were happy for that to happen, especially those in the know, but to say everyone or even a majority was is too much of a stretch, an easy excuse - to say the least.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because despite what many on this forum may believe they weren't defrauding anyone nor was any individual on their own "reckless"

Surely each individual who approved a mortgage without checking the applicant's income details was reckless

And each individual who approved a mortgage despite obvious evidence that the application was dodgy, was colluding in fraud

And each manager who turned a blind eye to trends of claimed incomes and consequent approved mortgages that couldn't be valid, was both.

And banks that gave targets to staff to sell loans and policies that could only be achieved by misselling or allowing fraudulent applications for loans,

And so on up to the boardroom where mortgage lending figures completely out of any sensible correlation with mortgagors incomes were not questioned and loans made to enterprises based purely on chasing market share rather than probability of a return.

So I think that a lot of individuals were at least "reckless" - it is just that there are so many where do you start?

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely each individual who approved a mortgage without checking the applicant's income details was reckless......

Easy to say, hard to prove. If the bank's policy was to approve self-cert mortgages up to £50,000 then the advisor was doing what he was supposed to unless he actually told them to inflate their income, chances of proving that are going to be close to nil.

Likewise the senior managment could plausibly justify the policy by saying "we judged that the costs of carrying out detailed checks exceeded any likely loss from fraudulent applications"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to say, hard to prove. If the bank's policy was to approve self-cert mortgages up to £50,000 then the advisor was doing what he was supposed to unless he actually told them to inflate their income, chances of proving that are going to be close to nil.

Likewise the senior managment could plausibly justify the policy by saying "we judged that the costs of carrying out detailed checks exceeded any likely loss from fraudulent applications"

im sorry, but when NR issued a statement to its agents "Guaranteed NO CHECKS"...that is reckless abandonment.

They were clearly not carryout their fiducial duties to the banks owners and investors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blog from Dan Hodges: The banker-bashing report is the financial equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act

...But if you actually read the report itself, it becomes clear even the Commission isn’t really convinced by the idea.

Under the headline “A new criminal offence?” (the question mark is a bit of a giveaway) it tentatively states “there is a strong case in principle for a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank”. But it then adds “all concerned should be under no illusions about the difficulties of securing a conviction for such a new offence”......

Because despite what many on this forum may believe they weren't defrauding anyone nor was any individual on their own "reckless"

Except that's a load of nonsense. We already know that fraud was involved in the libor scandal, and that the authorities have explicitly decided not to bring criminal charges on this because it might cause banks to fail.

Moreover the PPI scandal is also based on fraud. Large numbers of individuals were sold these policies when the banks knew they could not claim on them, and there is absolutely no way those policies could have been sold without fraud being implicit. Since the selling tactics used for these things would have involved statements of "you can claim such and such an amount for x amount of time etc". We now know such statements were complete lies used to sell these products (given that they could not claim), and that is fraud.

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because despite what many on this forum may believe they weren't defrauding anyone nor was any individual on their own "reckless"

Libor-PPI-Interest rate swaps, Goldman sachs 'shitty' deals- no need to dig deep for evidence of banker fraud- only trained regulator or banking shill could avoid tripping over it these days- after all the stupid f*ckers put most of it in Emails. :lol:

In any case the idea is not to limit prosecution for fraud but to create a new category of 'recklessness'.

Having said that I don't agree with the idea of using the threat of jail- there's a far more simple way to get the job done; simply pass a law that in a situation where a bank or other credit issuing entity requires a state bailout the management, higher ranking employees and directors should be stripped of their wealth- their cash, property and any other assets should be seized before a single penny is paid by the taxpayer.

So don't try to regulate the banking cesspool- let them regulate themselves. The risk that they may lose it all would be a far more effective deterrent than any half baked threat of jail time that will almost certainly never be carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean the American jails will be full of bankers, but British gaols will be empty. Best just to send them all to prision.

Edit to add.

Gaol is an obsolescent spelling of the word now usually spelled jail. Other than the spelling, there is no difference between the words. Gaol was common outside North American until fairly recently (it was stamped out of American English in the early 19th century, and dropped out of Canadian use about a century later), but it underwent a steady decline through the 20th century and now appears only rarely. Its most common use today is in the names of jails, but it is still possible to find a few scattered instances of gaol as a common noun in recent writing. For reasons mysterious to us, it appears to be most common in Ireland and Australia.

I'm British an refuse to use American English.

That's just fine.

We'll send them to Gaol.

Then after that we'll send them to Jail.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 238 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.