The FT notes on the record breaking UBS fine for LIBOR rigging:
The penalty may prove to be the biggest fine levied on banks that harboured a corrupt network of traders on three continents. Their common pursuit was massaging poorly supervised benchmark rates for profit and to conceal employers' financial weakness.
So we now know the banks were corrupt. But we're not yet saying the same of another corrupt network run by the banks. That is their tax haven operations. Why not? As HSBC has proven, they enable the money laundering, the corruption and the tax crime that takes place in these places. Why aren't we seeing tat described as a corrupt network too?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
More to the point Richard, as you’ve said yourself recently, why aren’t those in charge of this corruption facing trial? Why aren’t those in the auditing profession and all those involved in running the corrupt global finance system, also facing trial?
Presumably because punishment for wrongdoing, like taxes, regulations and morality, is only for the little people.
Why are UBS still allowed to operate at all? Their reputation is even shot amongst their own kind in the City. But I believe that the US is going to prosecute some of the traders as well as this enormous fine, and it seems that there is little chance of anything like that happening in the UK.
Excellent question
I have no answer
I would bar them from a UK banking licence. They’re clearly not fit to hold one
those are good questions, but your answer is wide of the mark, The simple truth is that there is nothing to prosecute.
Oh let’s not get silly here
Nothing to prosecute when there was organised fraud going on
How about failure to keep proper books and records as the basis for prosecution? They clearly did not or they would have recorded the liability for the fines
Mr Harris
since there has clearly been wrongdoing could you amplify ?
Do you mean “there is nothing that could be prosecuted to criminal standard”?
(which, regrettably, may be true) or
“there is nothing to prosecute” because the various failures fall outside the common law, (which may be true but I strongly doubt) or
“there is nothing to prosecute- there has been no wrongdoing” which I, personally, woudl find astonishing.
You could try reading Rowans blog, it might force open your eyes a little.
http://rowans-blog.blogspot.co.uk/
That blog is very, very good
Could it be there are no prosecutions because the whole financial system is so close to falling over that one big bank going down could be the tipping point and no politician wants he or his country to be the one that brings the gravy train to its inevitable end? After all the winner will be on top of the bottom of the heap, so let someone else push the button first.
The answer is that the purpose of any prosecution law is most importantly to protect the interest of the state and not the interest of the people or even make sure that justice exists. State Interest are crucial and therefore prosecution would ignore white collar crimes as long the investigation would be a threat to the local financial industry this is pretty obvious and I can prove. As a matter of fact prosecution would therefore ignore all legal principles and bend and stretch the law in order to protect state interest. As we know that states and politics are acutally controlled by the financial oligarchs or simple money power major financial institutions might have to pay a small fine but will never loose the licence to bank!!!
Ruedi
No one knows this better than you!
Have a good Christmas
Richard
What seems odd to me, Richard, is that the extreme right-wing libertarians base their view on a theoretical economics that requires, among other things, that all parties entering into economic relationships have perfect knowledge. Yet they are exactly the same people that trumpet the use of tax jurisdictions & structures designed to ensure nobody except a small elite can have even the remotest knowledge.
So, how does that work ? Are they hypocritical or am I missing something ?
You know my opinion on that!