martymcfly Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DabHand Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Thought there was going to be widespread reform back in '09 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 Thought there was going to be widespread reform back in '09 Parliamentary expenses scandal. Timing a complete coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hectors House Posted October 1, 2013 Share Posted October 1, 2013 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) 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 October 2, 2013 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 And what will reckless be defined as? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Why not reckless and/or fraudulent misconduct. [?] ... . Er......... See below....... LIAR LOANS: TOTAL FRAUD. 100% FRAUD..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) 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 October 2, 2013 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Why do we need a new law when there are plenty of existing laws that would work perfectly well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DabHand Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 weasel words, the horse bolted long ago. Purely meant to appease voters with smoke and mirrors. makes you sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BALD MAN Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) 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 October 2, 2013 by oracle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Who are me and my buds. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE BALD MAN Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.