A Question To My MP regarding Banker Criminal Behaviour

Late last year I sent a letter to my MP - Minister at the Home Office and Ministry of Justice - about the LIBOR rigging scandal and the more recent FOREX rigging revelations that had come to light.
The main thrust of the letter was to seek answers on any plans for criminal prosecutions of those involved directly, including the senior execs who also handsomely profited from the proceeds of criminal behavior.

Here's what I sent to him:

Hello Mike

I am writing to you to ask if you are aware of any plans within the government, to begin prosecutions against those responsible for the LIBOR and FOREX scandals (and any subsequent financial rigging scandals)?

The reason I ask, as I have heard so many people ask and wonder about in recent times, is that we are talking about fraud on a massive scale. A conman conning a little old lady out of a few hundred pounds will be plastered across the press as evil incarnate, yet it always seems that those conning entire countries out of money are given a government approved “get out of jail free card”. Despite all the wrongdoing and, lets be quite honest here, criminal behavior, not one bank executive has seen the inside of a police car, let alone a jail cell.
Surely we are talking about organized crime here, on a huge scale, yet the punishment meted out is a fine (some or part tax deductible?) which is recouped soon enough anyway and the costs passed on to the customers. I see too that as punishment, the “regulators” as talking about the banker’s bonuses being capped at 200% of salary. Well now, that willl sure teach them the error of their ways and ensure they won’t be naughty again!

I thought the proceeds of organized crime were to be seized – houses, flash cars, cash etc. So far, all we have seen is those guilty of this massive fraud being perpetrated upon the people of the world, not just the UK, being rewarded for their crimes and let off with a stern word or two. Isn’t it about time that all those committing the crimes, and those at the top of the ladder, the executives, whose salaries and bonuses are also tied to the institution’s performance, are placed in jail and have all they own seized as the profits of organized crime? After all, the executives are guilty too of profiting. They know where the money is being made and turn a blind eye, but profit from it personally.

Time to take the gloves off and start issuing harsh sentences and asset seizures I think, and many would agree. The excuse that is always trotted out, that we can’t be too harsh as all the top bankers would leave the city of London, is laughable. I mean, seriously, they have not exactly done a stellar job in the past and have shown their greed and utter contempt for the country and the people within it. Another bailout for the boys and it’s off to the club for a large one!

A crime is a crime, no matter who the perpetrator is or their perceived importance. We either uphold the letter of the law, in all cases, and have justice meted out equally across the board, or none at all.

I’d be interested to hear your views on the punishments for high financial crimes, and the government’s justification for the apparent non prosecutorial approach.

Initially, the response I received was a little disheartening as he stated that this was outside the area of his expertise and that he was passing my letter to the Chancellor, George Osborne for comment. You'd think that a "Minister at the Home Office and Ministry of Justice" would be perfectly placed to bring criminal proceedings against those involved in criminal behavior on such a large scale. Apparently not though as deferred to the Chancellor and Treasury Department.

After a couple of chasing letters asking for a follow-up or reply, I finally received a response this week. I have scanned in the letter I received and posted it below if you care to have a read of it. Most of it sounds like nothing more than a puffed up party political broadcast, which I expected. Some parts though I will be asking for clarification on.

Another point I will be making to my MP is that, in failing to uphold the law in these cases, they forfeit all right to govern and should be removed from office immediately.




One paragraph that stands out for me is this one:



So the CPS and SFO were created to be free of political control and direction? Oh Really?
I remember it wasn't so very long ago that Mr. Tony Blair personally quashed the SFO investigation into BAE and the bribes and kickbacks it was paying to secure contracts with the Saudis, amongst other things.
I also remember reading of a written note on the front of a file detailing molestation by that nasty corpulent fellow Cyril Smith, penned by the Director of Public Prosecutions, that it was "Not in the Public Interest", which the paragraph also alludes to.

The simple answer there of course is that those in high places, on the public purse, who are involved in any criminal actions should not have any protections over and above what any other person has, and it is certainly in the public's interest, no matter how serious the matter is. Even if such revelations are severe enough to bring down the government, the people still have a right to know. We are owed explanations and have a right to know that those who lord it over us are held to the same laws and standards of behavior.

I am sure there are many people in this country who feel the same as me about these issues, and the ever increasing scandals and criminal, morally reprehensible actions of those in power. It will be interesting to see what actions are taken on the part of the SFO and CPS in the cases listed above. Having a rather jaded view already of those career politicians of all parties, I don't expect much, if any, change to occur.

a reply to: Britguy

Well done to you Sir.

Seems to me though that the SFO have started the hunt. First Arrest in SFO forex investigation.

How many more will there be ?, and will they get the top dogs ?, one can only hope.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

That's why I like my current MP she pretty good at responding to letters and not with pre made letters or using Secretarys.

But shes a young and new. Give it a decade and she will end up like the rest I bet!

a reply to: Britguy

That's a good result and I commend you - nice to see your constituency MP did in deed pass it up the line. As to the outcome of these things only time will see - and in an an Election year its good to keep pointing out your issues - so fair play. You deserve plaudits :-)

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Britguy

Well done to you Sir.

Seems to me though that the SFO have started the hunt. First Arrest in SFO forex investigation.

How many more will there be ?, and will they get the top dogs ?, one can only hope.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell

Thanks!
My fear, borne out from many years seeing how these things play out, is that a few low grade boys will get thrown to the wolves while the execs walk away promising that "lessons have been learned" and things will improve. Of course, they made a nice pile in salary and bonuses too along the way and should be held accountable. As the exec management teams, they should know what is going and pleading ignorance to it seems a little bit lame.

We shall see though how it goes and what the SFO comes up with, unless it all gets swept under the rug in an election year and quietly goes away.

originally posted by: crazyewok
That's why I like my current MP she pretty good at responding to letters and not with pre made letters or using Secretarys.

But shes a young and new. Give it a decade and she will end up like the rest I bet!

Had my MP not responded, I'd have started turning up at his "town hall" meetings and saying it all out loud in front of everyone, forcing a response.

originally posted by: Silk
a reply to: Britguy

That's a good result and I commend you - nice to see your constituency MP did in deed pass it up the line. As to the outcome of these things only time will see - and in an an Election year its good to keep pointing out your issues - so fair play. You deserve plaudits :-)

Thanks!
The electioneering has already started of course, which is why I tend to take a lot of what is in the letter with a very large pinch of salt. Seeing how the SFO and CPS have caved to political interference in the past, as have the police, I think the only way to keep up the pressure is by people keeping the issues in the limelight.

I think that is the real big issue though, the SFO and CPS are government created bodies, so the idea that they are somehow independent of government influence or interference is a bad joke. When these bodies are headed up by political appointees in the first place, the outcomes of any investigations are always going to be slanted in favour of those who appointed them and will disappear if they threaten the status quo.

We shall see though.

Perhaps another more recent issue, that seems to be proving once again, the immunity these banks and their executives enjoy, is that of the HSBC shielding / advising rich clients in stashing away huge sums in Switzerland.

A good piece appeared yesterday summing it up nicely:

www.blacklistednews.com...

France, Belgium, Spain, the US, and Argentina have already launched legal proceedings against HSBC and its high net worth clients. But not so the UK, whose tax authority has used the data to bring only one measly prosecution in the last five years. Worse still, according to The Guardian, the UK authorities were allegedly already in possession of detailed evidence about wrongdoing at HSBC’s Swiss bank when the country’s premier David Cameron appointed Stephen Green, the executive chairman of HSBC from 2006-10, as the country’s Minister of Trade.

Upon Green’s appointment, the government’s business secretary, Vince Cable, had the following to say:

In Stephen we will be appointing a minister with a long career as a leading international banker. [He is] one of the few to emerge with credit from the recent financial crisis, and somebody who has set out a powerful philosophy for ethical business.

A "Powerful philosophy for ethical business" indeed.

a reply to: Britguy

Not trying to go too far off topic but I found it highly odd that 1 man Nick Leeson was the cause of Barings Bank collapse in 1995. Nothing else was looked into case closed. Many people back then said that a trader couldnt go "rogue" as there were safeguards in place to stop such an eventuality.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Not off topic at all. In fact, I always thought the Barings collapse was something of a catalyst moment, that has led to the situation we are in today.

Back then, there were no bailouts by the taxpayer, and it was this event that triggered them to change the rules to protect themselves above all else. Nick Leeson was just the sacrificial lamb who took the rap for the collapse.
Losing big time through risky trades is still a danger, just ask JP Morgan, but now they have the option of bailouts and bail-ins as a buffer against collapse.