Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
martymcfly

Bankers May Be Jailed Under Proposed New Uk Law

Recommended Posts

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

Chancellor George Osborne set out the charges in 86 amendments to the Treasury's Banking Reform Bill.

The changes are due to come into effect in 2014.

They include laws separating the High Street banks from their trading arms in the City in order to protect taxpayers, said the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24359097

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

Chancellor George Osborne set out the charges in 86 amendments to the Treasury's Banking Reform Bill.

The changes are due to come into effect in 2014.

They include laws separating the High Street banks from their trading arms in the City in order to protect taxpayers, said the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24359097

Misdirection. They should already be prosecuted for criminal negligence and fraud.

A new law by definition is saying "oh yes it was very bad behaviour but there was nothing illegal about it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

Chancellor George Osborne set out the charges in 86 amendments to the Treasury's Banking Reform Bill.

The changes are due to come into effect in 2014.

They include laws separating the High Street banks from their trading arms in the City in order to protect taxpayers, said the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-24359097

That's not saying much - what is separation?

There's been a lot of talk about the Vickers reforms and the timetable, but I'd be happy to hear there's a serious prospect of prosecution for future abuses - most effective form of deterrence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_%28legal%29#Effectiveness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't there be something similar for Politicians?

Minister of State screws up and costs the tax payer money then they forfeit their fortunes, So whoever signs off HS2 pays for it out of their own pocket when it all goes horribly wrong!

Electoral Winner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

That was announced a few months ago.

"Reckless" seems to leave plenty of room for interpretation leaving plenty of scope for bankers to get away free and clear - yet again.

Why not reckless and/or fraudulent misconduct.

Why only if "leading to the fall of a bank".

Regarding the criminal sanctions, a Treasury spokesman said: "The offence will only apply to behaviour which falls far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of a person in that position -..

Seems a major loophole already seeing as the standard that could reasonably be expected of such a person has already been set by the standard of Libor fraud and the liar loan standard and all the other fraudulent stuff.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was announced a few months ago.

"Reckless" seems to leave plenty of room for interpretation leaving plenty of scope for bankers to get away free and clear - yet again.

Why not reckless and/or fraudulent misconduct.

Why only if "leading to the fall of a bank".

Seems a major loophole already seeing as the standard that could reasonably be expected of such a person has already been set by the standard of Libor fraud and the liar loan standard and all the other fraudulent stuff.

fraudulent conduct is already a serious crime.

reckless conduct will come under the many offences Directors and those acting AS Directors can be committed under their Fiduciary Duties.

Note, these duties are not just for Company Officers...those Acting As IF they were Company Officers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

Nice in theory but in practice impossible to prove. Even the likes of Fred Goodwin would be able to mount a reasonable defence to this.

They should already be prosecuted for criminal negligence....

What is criminal negligence? Is this an offence on the statute books? If so could you let me know what act creates the offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fraudulent conduct is already a serious crime.

reckless conduct will come under the many offences Directors and those acting AS Directors can be committed under their Fiduciary Duties.

Note, these duties are not just for Company Officers...those Acting As IF they were Company Officers....

Indeed it is already a serious crime but apparently senior bankers don't face criminal charges for possible "fraudulent" misconduct leading to (or not leading to) the fall of a bank so it seems that the law should be changed to take into account how easily senior bankers seem to get away with it. Of course that's likely why they're emphasising the reckless part to try to suggest that recklessness is the only reason for the banking problems.

In the UK there hasn't been a case of senior banker fraud (or negligence for that matter) connected to the banking collapse (or Libor etc for that matter) so that they could prove that they weren't guilty of it.

Maybe what is defined as fraud should be tightened up as well - when considering senior bankers.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is criminal negligence? Is this an offence on the statute books? If so could you let me know what act creates the offence.

Eh you are right of course, manslaughter and cars only it seems, even though the logic could be applied. Guess they'll have to make very specific law just for you and your buds, you slippery fecker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess they'll have to make very specific law just for you and your buds, you slippery fecker.

Who are me and my buds.

Appologies if I try to inject an occasional note of realism into this forum rather than repeating your calls for an ill-defined group of people to be charged with a non-existant offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice in theory but in practice impossible to prove. Even the likes of Fred Goodwin would be able to mount a reasonable defence to this.

What is criminal negligence? Is this an offence on the statute books? If so could you let me know what act creates the offence.

They took bonuses from non-existent profits? Sounds fairly fraudulent to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They took bonuses from non-existent profits? Sounds fairly fraudulent to me.

Only if the profits were known to be non-existant at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior bankers could face criminal charges for "reckless" misconduct leading to the fall of a bank, under new UK government plans.

Chancellor George Osborne set out the charges in 86 amendments to the Treasury's Banking Reform Bill.

The changes are due to come into effect in 2014.

They include laws separating the High Street banks from their trading arms in the City in order to protect taxpayers, said the government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24359097

nice but goes nowhere near far enough.

should be a capital offence.

same for local/national government officials and representatives found either:

i) with their fingers in the till fiddling expenses (which duly should be tracked and monitored with HOC "debit cards)"..all monthly statements published online.

ii) taking kickbacks from lobby groups/foreign investors/foreign political/religeous groups in return for "favourable" voting and proposals of said groups agendas.

I believe most of them actually DO,AT PRESENT, STAND GUILTY UNDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT.

....at best, we are looking at embezzelment, but in some other cases we are most certainly talking about high treason.

when will these people get the message that it really is clean-your-act-up-time.the clock is most certainly ticking.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are me and my buds.

2011-09-21-science-and-magic.jpg

You have two buds 15 and 16 on the diagram.

This is what you have to do if you want to get rid of your buds

57.11.5.GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if the profits were known to be non-existant at the time.

Banks accounting has been called into question for a number of years....profits were only supported by dodgy accounting practises...at the best negligent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.