Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


Judge Takes Pity On 'embarrassed' Rbs Bankers Who Committed £3M Fraud

Recommended Posts

Two RBS bankers have walked away from a £3m property fraud without having to complete jail time because the judge believes they have already "suffered" as they were "embarrassed" by the incident.

Raymond Pask, 54, and his employee Andrew Ratnage, 50, established a series of fake companies in the names of Pask's relatives so they could apply for mortgages to buy and renovate homes and then sell them for a profit.

The loan applications were submitted to the bankers' employers so they could pass it without drawing attention to themselves.

The bankers, who both earned in excess of £100,000 a year, managed to ascertain loans totalling £3m over a five-year period from 2005.

With the loans, they managed to buy three properties in London, one in Essex and another in Kent.

It has taken since 2010 for the case to come to court, by which time the bankers have managed to repay the loans to RBS, which Judge Rebecca Poulet QC said, along with the embarrassment they have expressed, is punishment enough.

She said: "I accept that it was not your intention to cause loss to the bank. I accept you intended at all times for the money to be repaid and it has been fortunate the bank has not suffered.

"I have no doubt that both of you have suffered in the time it has taken this case to come to court."

Pask has had to deal with a failed marriage in this time and he has had his pension pot reduced to £120,000 he claims he is now "financially ruined".

Meanwhile, Ratnage has suffered from poor health including diabetes. [more at link]


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that just bad english, or is the title wrong:

Raymond Pask, 54, and his employee Andrew Ratnage, 50

were they RBS employees then or not? If yes, AR was not an employee of RP?

I'm also not sure what the offence was? Lying about the property values? Lying about the assets given as guarantee? Sticking your rellies in charge of a company is not fraud...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were jailed...just suspended, and at least they are cleaning hedges for 300 hours.

I think the judge was just chicken.

She says there was little risk to the bank...she is probably right, if the market had crashed in 2005, it would have been bailed anyway.

And yes, Liar Loans start at the broker, the borrower, the banker, the Investment banker, meanwhile, the fraud falls on the final investors...the Judge sees these as so far away from the street level crime that she says they dont matter.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't say whether they still work for RBS (nothing would surprise with bankers these days) but as the scam started in 2005 in London and the south east once they were found out they wouldn't have much difficulty using part of the property gains to pay back the loans and still make a hefty profit.

If they're still working for RBS did they get some nice bonuses to help things along at taxpayers expense as part of the bailout.

They claim they're "financially ruined". What's the definition of financially ruined for a UK banker - still pretty wealthy?

At any rate the time for bankers remorse is over - Mr Diamond said so in 2011.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't Judges usually say stuff like "We have to set an example due to the lawlessness of your actions and we have no alternative but to give you a jail term and for you to serve it accordingly" that sort of stuff or at least that's the sort of stuff that the newspapers usually report they say to offenders.

If the bankers were financially ruined shouldn't the law for the poor people have applied seeing as there's one law for the rich people and another law for the poor people.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes (If you intended to pay it back from the start).


Prison may depend on whether you can persuade the jury that you intended to pay it back.

It may be theft to 'borrow' goods, use them, and to replace them with goods of equivalent value. There was a famous case R v Velumyl where it was ruled that a man who borrowed money from his company's safe as an informal loan intending to return it was guilty of theft, as unless he returned the exact same bank notes he took from the safe, he had permenently deprived his employer of the original bank notes.


Regarding the RBS case, I suggest we complain to the Attorney General that the sentence is unduly lenient:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 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.