SFO: to prosecute or not ... ?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Fri, 23/03/2012 - 12:37

The Observer has reported that, after close examination and "a lot of hand-wringing", the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) "have ruled out a criminal prosecution" in relation to a suspected €500m market manipulation at KSF (UK). According to The Observer, "The reason given is that it would be costly and 'untriable' in front of a jury in a British court because of the complex financial instruments involved."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/18/icleand-investigates-city...

Whether or not this means that all potential prosecutions in relation to KSF (UK) have been abandoned is not clear to me. Only time will tell.

Meanwhile however, Rowan Bosworth-Davies' latest reflections on "the UK authorities lack of appetite for prosecuting financial crime" give pause for thought. Referring to the 'Blue Arrow' affair in the 1980s, he writes "The jury had no difficulty in convicting all the leading defendants, who included some of the ‘great and the good’ of the City at that time. However, for reasons that are almost beyond comprehension, the Court of Appeal overturned the guilty verdicts. ... After the Blue Arrow case, a friend of mine in the SFO told me that the message had come down from on high that there would never again be any similar kind of prosecution of any City institution or its senior executives. The reason the ‘Blue Arrow’ affair proved so terrifying for the managerial classes and senior financiers was that it demonstrated that ordinary juries could understand the ramifications of complex fraud cases, and that they could convict."
http://www.ianfraser.org/has-the-uk-rediscovered-its-long-lost-appetite-...

If true, that is indeed very disturbing and throws perhaps a rather different light on the recent decision of the SFO ...

4.75
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (12 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

SFO vs Tchenguiz: Judicial review judgment

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/08/2012 - 12:31

As widely reported in the press yesterday, the High Court has ruled that the search warrants issued to the Serious Fraud Office were unlawful as they were obtained by misrepresentation and non‐disclosure to the judge (see reports linked to here: http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/news-item/vincent-tchenguiz-warrants-be...).

In summarising the judgment "to assist the media", the judge took care to point out that "the merits of the investigation and continuing the investigation are not an issue in these proceedings. It is very important that proceedings of this kind are confined to the issues that strictly arise and are not utilised as a means of indirectly seeking the court’s view on an investigation. The question whether matters should be investigated is under our constitution the responsibility of the investigating and prosecuting authorities; the role of the courts is strictly limited. There would be highly undesirable consequences if it were otherwise."

In a striking postscript, the judge added:
"In our view, there is a more important lesson to be learnt which in fairness to the then Director of the SFO we must make clear. The investigation and prosecution of serious fraud in the financial markets requires proper resources, both human and financial. It is quite clear that the SFO did not have such resources in the present case: .... All of these considerations must be taken into account in any consideration of the present case and criticism of those involved, as it is clear to us that the SFO was not properly resourced for this investigation."

The SFO has issued the following press release (the bold type is mine):

"Kaupthing: Judicial review judgment
31 July 2012

The High Court has today handed down its judgment following judicial review proceedings heard in May 2012 brought against the Serious Fraud Office by Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz and companies and trusts through which their business was conducted.

The SFO had conceded that serious mistakes were made in connection with the application for search warrants in this case but notes the reasoned tone of the judgment and the helpful comments it contains.

The judgment and the SFO's concession highlight the importance of quality and accuracy in the drafting of information supporting warrant applications. This focus on quality underlies the reorganisation of the SFO already conducted by the new Director, David Green CB QC. The restructuring and recent senior appointments are designed to provide inbuilt layers of quality assurance and avoid the repetition of such errors.

The SFO will provide any assistance required to the suggested review of the process of obtaining warrants. The SFO will bring in specialist knowledge as and when required.

We note that the Court declined to consider the merits of the future of the investigation, this being the responsibility of the SFO as an investigating and prosecuting authority. The SFO will continue with the investigation with renewed focus and vigour."
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/press-room/latest-press-releases/press-releases-20...

The full judgment and summary are available for download on the judiciary website: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2012/tchenguiz-v-serious-fra...

See also a subsequent article in the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9442490/SFO-to-contin...


Tchenguiz

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/08/2012 - 07:36

From the beginning I have said that these guys were untouchable.
This ridiculous "judgement" proves my case very eloquently.


Re Tchenguiz vs SFO judicial review

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/08/2012 - 20:39

SFO drops investigation into two more Kaupthing suspects

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 19/07/2012 - 07:52

Oh! I forgot to add this....

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/06/2012 - 05:48

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/matt-taibbi-and-your-humble-blogg...

I'll let the link speak for itself. The UK establishment on the other hand better start finding very skillful lawyers..
and we all know just how expensive crap English lawyers are!


Look at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 27/06/2012 - 05:37

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/26/jersey-threatens-independence-t...
Look at the comments. The first comment says it all.

Anrigaut the tide is turning.

Oh, Hello Gavin, how are the sheep doing? It isn't an attack it's just a polite question. Gavin understands. Don't you Gavin?

Glug glug IoM.


SFO and the Tchenguiz brothers: Vincent’s case dropped

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/06/2012 - 12:26

Comment on Sigrun's blog here:
http://uti.is/2012/06/sfo-and-the-tchenguiz-brothers-vincents-case-dropped/

"For those who hope that the authorities know what they are doing when it comes to investigating financial fraud it’s been an excruciating experience to follow the SFO investigation into the Tchenguiz brothers’ relationship with Kaupthing. Regarding Vincent, all went wrong at the SFO that could go wrong. The SFO must be reviewing it all in detail, ia how documents already with the SFO, showing that Vincent wasn’t fooling Kaupthing with his collaterals came to be ignored – Kaupthing did indeed know the bank couldn’t enforce the collateral.

It’s crystal clear that the SFO went about all this completely in the wrong way – but it doesn’t mean there is nothing there to investigate. As to Vincent, that opportunity is now lost. What remains is Robert’s relationship with Kaupthing. His loans went from just over a billion euros to €2.2bn in one year – the fatal year when no banks were lending, ie from end of 2007 until the collapse of the bank in Oct. 2008.

As to the Kaupthing managers, the question is why the bank was willing to lend Tchenguiz, as so many of its main clients, against no or poor collaterals and, time and again, to expose the bank to excessive risk whereas the favoured clients were completely, or mostly, sheltered from any risk. Some would say that such lending is a breach of a manager’s duty, on behalf of a bank’s shareholders, to take into account the interest of the bank – and not just the interest of a few favoured clients, who in some cases also were among the bank’s shareholders.

These stories are all laid bare in the Icelandic SIC report, cases involving this type of lending are being pursued by the Office of the Special Prosecutor in Iceland (now with one case ended and two bankers sent to prison for 4 1/2) years. Not only Kaupthing but also Landsbanki operated in this way – both banks operated in the UK: these are not Icelandic stories, except that the banks were Icelandic – these are international stories.

And yet and yet, other countries such as the UK – not to mention Luxembourg where the core of the shadiest Icelandic operations were carried out – seem to be utterly complacent. That said, not much is being done to investigate lending by the three bust Irish banks and the Spanish cajas – but that’s another story for another day. "


Update to Sigrun's post

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 20/06/2012 - 12:10

Seems I am no longer able to edit my previous post (since a reply has ben posted). However, I note that, in an update to her original blog reproduced above, Sigrun has modified the first two sentences of the second paragraph, which now read as follows:
"It’s crystal clear that the SFO went about all this completely in the wrong way, in Vincent’s case. After much confusion the SFO is now satisfied there is nothing there to investigate."

As far as I can see, the rest is unchanged.


Anrigaut - SFO and the Tchenguiz brothers

  • Gordon 45
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 19/06/2012 - 21:01

Hi anrigaut,

Just on once more to thank you for your latest update concerning the SFO v Vincent Tuchenguiz - it appears so amazing that our senior investigatve institution can get it so wrong when people like HMRC are so quick to hammer us if we step out of line.

Gordon 45


Tchenguiz

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 03/08/2012 - 07:31

Gordon,
I am afraid you do not have the connections the Tchenguiz's have, such as the ex attorney general!


My contribtion to this site expiring: what next?

  • sunny1
  • 16/10/08 30/05/14
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 25/05/2012 - 18:11

I don't know where to put this, but am hoping that someone will be able to answer.
When we were asked to state a date for the expiry of the money we had contributed, I wrote May 31 2012. It seemed a long way into the future but - as the future does - it has come round.
Most certainly, I do not wish at all to lose contact with this site. How do I inject some more funding? Help please. Sunny1.


Your status

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 27/05/2012 - 16:39

Hi sunny1

Do not concern yourself with losing contact with this site, if funds are required then there will be a request made by 'ng'.


Did Kaupthing managers really stay at Robert Tchenguiz house?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 25/05/2012 - 08:31

"No, they didn’t. The story that Kaupthing managers stayed at Robert Tchenguiz’ house has done the rounds in both the UK and the Icelandic media. It sprung from a remark James Edie QC, SFO’s barrister, made at the Wednesday hearing in the judicial review of Robert and his brother, Vincent. I certainly understood Edie’s words to mean that Kaupthing managers had been living at Robert Tchenguiz house. However, I didn’t make use of this remark since I couldn’t quite see why the managers should have stayed with Robert – they had pretty nice houses themselves – and I wanted some further proof of this bizarre choice of abode.

Thursday morning, this story was on print the Telegraph. First thing at the hearing Thursday morning Edie brought this article to the attention of Lord Justice Thomas, who presides over the case, saying he had no intention to create a misunderstanding. He hadn’t meant that the Kaupthing execs had literally been staying at Robert Tchenguiz’ home, only that they lived in the vicinity of Tchenguiz, in Mayfair. Lord McDonald, representing Robert, said that he and Edie had found it entirely plausible that the execs had preferred Mayfair to Reykjavik.

This little incident and exchange of comments made the Lord Justice chuckle, adding that he had no intention of investigating this little matter any further."

http://uti.is/2012/05/did-kaupthing-managers-really-stay-at-robert-tchen...


Sigrun's take on the Tchenguiz review

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 30/05/2012 - 12:55

While we await the judges' ruling on this case, Sigrun's latest blog (of which an extract posted as a news item) is here:
http://uti.is/2012/05/the-commercial-motives-in-the-kaupthing-loans-to-t...

This portrays a world beyond my ken, but well worth reading in full if you can get your head around it!

Interesting to note that Tony Shearer commented immediately - as he has done several times on Sigrun's excellent blog. As he so rightly says:

"A tale that would be unbelievable if we did not already know so much about how Kaupthing was run. The so-called advisers and regulators really do need to explain how they allowed a bank to be run like this, and to face up to their responsibilities to those who lost money; and we need explanations from those who are supposed to regulate the advisers."

I think we would all endorse that!


Yes, Anrigaut, you've got it-

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 22/05/2012 - 03:36

It's the same as the States, and although it doesn't enter in the polemic - Europa.
The financial sector has such a hold on power that the have until now (at least Tchenguiz) avoided prosecution.
That doesn't mean the net isn't closing. We can see the crisis 'continuing'. And perhaps the readers mike like to comment on my supposition that it is deepening and maturing. What does 'continuing' mean? Well it seems to mean that there is more and more a challenge to their reality in 'reading' of the situation.

The reality is that everybody from our favorite Irishman until Bell, Cashen and Gelling, Browne, Brown, the dwarves of the UK Insurers that sold bonds. and sit on the CoI (heh heh heh the CoI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).. et al (y Tchenguiz y su hermano evitando prosecución) have st*ffed everybody. It is like we have a epidemic of 'Pontius Pilatism' that is all the guilty/culpable washing their habds in public whilst contracting for building works on their houses in the Wirral (Or in Gordon's cas in Devon).

Are we really that naieve?

The cat is in the cradle.

I know that you know it Anrigaut. I do too. Are the rest of you getting it?

!00%. Why is that? Well it quite simple. Another 'little bubble' was blown. Hooray.

Does anybody on the CoI have the slighest grasp of economics?


[ng] Edited. Please refrain from personal attacks towards other DAG members.


Tchenguiz case to be heard next week

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 19/05/2012 - 07:28

http://uti.is/2012/05/kaupthing-employee-loans-and-the-tchenguiz-judicia...

"Next week, Vincent Tchenguiz judicial review granted into his arrest, house searches and raids is scheduled to come up in court.* This case relates to an investigation into his connections with Kaupthing, conducted on behalf of the Serious Fraud Office, These three days in court will no doubt be highly interesting. His brother Robert has also been granted a judicial review.

Much of the dealings that Vincent and his brother Robert had with Kaupthing went through Luxembourg. SFO has, as well as the Icelandic Office of the Special Prosecutor, done house searches in Luxembourg. From the way Kaupthing was run, it’s quite clear that without documents and sources in Luxembourg the brothers’ connections – as well the relationship between Kaupthing and mother major clients – will neither be fully understood nor explained."

BUT this claim by the DT seems quite extraordinary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9274125/SFO-offered-t...

Wonder what the judge will make of that?!


SFO and the Tchenguiz brothers

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 22/05/2012 - 09:00

More from Sigrun here:
http://uti.is/2012/05/sfo-and-the-tchenguiz-brothers/

"In an FT front page article today, the story is of an SFO lawyer who in a report warned the SFO not to pursue a case against the Tchenguiz brothers. One of the reasons: “It was an Icelandic bank, with many of the suspects in the case being Icelandic nationals, allegedly committing fraud against Icelandic institutions, taxpayers and authorities,” according to a person who has seen the report.

Correct, Kaupthing was an Icelandic bank – but it had a subsidiary here in the UK, these loans were made here and in Luxembourg, not in Iceland. This happened on the SFO’s turf, with clients based here and most of the money spent here. Surely, a clear case for the SFO to investigate. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be anyone to investigate these matters. Otherwise, the UK is a free-for-all foreign financiers to get involved with UK citizens with good offers.

Most of the cases pursued by the SFO are against some previously unknown crooks who have managed to swindle lots of money. It’s not every day that the SFO lawyers meet someone like Lord Goldsmith in court and high-flyers like the Tchenguiz brothers. This might test SFO’s confidence but it hardly tests the legitimacy of pursuing a case involving a UK subsidiary of a foreign company.

At the heart of the case are loans that not everyone could get and the relationship Kaupthing had with its favoured clients and – in the case of Robert Tchenguiz who sat on the board of Exista – the largest shareholder of the bank."


SFO and the Tchenguiz judicial review: day 1

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 23/05/2012 - 07:33

"Today, the defence teams of Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz spoke in Court, in order to demonstrate that the Serious Fraud Office had been wholly wrong in its actions against the two brothers. ... "

Sigrun's report on day 1: http://uti.is/2012/05/sfo-and-the-tcenguiz-judicial-review-day-1/

See also News items


A reputation buy-back for £50m from the SFO?

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 21/05/2012 - 13:41

Sigrun's blog on this:
http://uti.is/2012/05/a-reputation-buy-back-for-50m-from-the-sfo/

According to The Daily Telegraph, Kaupthing-clients Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz were at some point negotiating with the Serious Fraud Office if they could get out of the SFO investigating claw by paying £50m to charity. Unsurprisingly, the SFO isn’t commenting nor are the Tchenguiz brothers.
...

For those interested in Kaupthing and its favoured clients, the coming week will be a very interesting one.


High Court of Iceland to Rule in Ex-PM Haarde Trial

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 18/04/2012 - 10:19

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/High_Court_of_Iceland_...

High Court of Iceland to Rule in Ex-PM Haarde Trial

The High Court (Landsdómur) will assemble in the Culture House in Reykjavík on April 23 to announce its verdict in the trial of former Prime Minister of Iceland Geir H. Haarde, who is charged with violating the laws on ministerial responsibility.

This was confirmed by Geir’s attorney Andri Árnason yesterday, Morgunblaðið reports.

Alþingi, the Icelandic parliament, agreed on September 28, 2010, to file charges against the former PM for violations that are said to have taken place from February to October 2008, in the months leading up to the banking collapse.

The High Court convened for the first time in Iceland’s history on March 8, 2011 for the case. The principal proceedings began on March 5, 2012, and the case was received for adjudication on March 16.


SFO and the Tchenguiz case

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 05/04/2012 - 08:20

Bloomberg reported yesterday that the SFO has been "denied more time to prepare for a trial over its handling of the 2011 arrests of real estate investors Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz. .... Judge John Thomas ruled the trial should be held May 22 as planned and criticized the SFO for not reporting potential delays earlier." The case is listed as "Robert Tchenguiz v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office & Anr, High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, CO/4468/2011."

As Sigrun comments in her latest blog, the SFO "seems to have committed a major blunder in the handling of documents when Vincent Tchenguiz, together with his brother Robert, was arrested in March last year, together with Sigurdur Einarsson, ex-chairman of Kaupthing’s board and six others. ..."
http://uti.is/2012/04/sfo-wrestles-with-the-tchenguiz-case/comment-page-...

Sigrun concludes: "The SFO seems to be investigating what the real relationship was between Kaupthing and the Tchenguiz brothers. If the SFO suspicions are valid it is unfortunate that they could possibly hinge on technical issues. Remains to be seen."

Unfortunate indeed - to say the least!


Tchenguiz, Kaupthing and the SFO ...

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/05/2012 - 11:05

... as seen by Sigrun in her latest blog:
http://uti.is/2012/05/tchenguiz-kaupthing-and-the-sfo/

"The SFO’s troubled investigation into the Tchenguiz brothers and their relationship to Kaupthing has been getting some attention in the UK press recently. Last Sunday, Simon Bowers at the Guardian wrote an excellent and well-informed article on SFO’s trouble. Yesterday, the FT took up the same topic, explaining in detail what it was that the SFO had messed up. ...

...

"It’s necessary to keep in mind that Kaupthing (as well as Glitnir and Landsbanki) did, time and again, issue loans to their favoured clients with insufficient or no collaterals. That was the rule, rather than the exception when lending to favoured clients with whom the bank frequently also co-invested.

It’s more than unfortunate if the SFO has spoiled its own case by tackling it from the wrong end. It may be hard to understand that Kaupthing knew of the inadequacy of the collaterals because it beggars belief that a bank would lend on these terms – but then, that’s no excuse because an investigation is about doing things properly and not let beliefs and suppositions get in the way.

However, the question that the FT doesn’t ask, quite amazingly, is: if Kaupthing knew the collaterals were pretty much useless and worthless to Kaupthing, why did it ever accept these collaterals and issue the loan to Vincent?* Though the SFO misunderstood or mishandled some relevant material to begin with it might still be asking the right questions – the central questions regarding the nature of the relationship Kaupthing had with its clients.

  • This is also an issue for Kaupthing’s auditors to contemplate – were they aware of the loan covenants in this loan and other similar loans? – The FT has seen an SFO statement presented to the courts against the Tchenguiz brothers. The statement is not in the public domain but I would be very interested in reading it, in case anyone has a copy. "

Tchenguiz

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/05/2012 - 18:35

I would be absolutely amazed if the Tchenguiz's are ever prosecuted.
The reality is that the cabal which really rules in the City is also supported by many of the UK's senior judiciary.
An example is that Tchenguiz has obtained the support of an ex Attorney General.
The SFO is therefore just pretending that they are pursuing this blatant piece of fraud but in reality they are building up the case in such a way that it will fail. After all they have to keep up the pretence!
I am just being realistic.
Let us face it, it has become patently obvious to us that large scale borrowers have many more rights than small individual lenders.


@Brabander

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 03/05/2012 - 21:59

Indeed - I fear you are right, at least in terms of the all-pervasive influence of the City. As for the SFO messing it up on purpose, I just don't know.


City

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/05/2012 - 07:55

Written in haste...
I concur with your qualifications. I have absolutely no evidence for my assertions.
All I have seen is that the Tchenguiz's have some powerful supporters.
The moral is that if your borrow billions against some dodgy collateral you can get away with it provided you have the correct connections.


The correct conclusion (boys?) Girls.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/05/2012 - 04:03

What happened in the IoM with the Deputy Dumpster?
And a much more important question: Why can't the SFO etc/cerca gain traction?
Just like the IoM with "our directors (Cashen/Gelling etc ) our management (what was that worthless irishman called without resorting to abuse?), our auditors (we know their names..) and some of our self appointed representatives...
not to forget the devil's servantl Bell ... doing?
They were "cooling the mark." (Erving Goffman 1952).

Yes, you are getting close to the truth.
It is worth continuing.

Ahh by the way, I've forgetten to mention Gavin, what a serious omission. What is Gavin doing?
Gavin is really insignificant. Yes, I know. But he is a symbol (aren't you Gavin?) (I have no idea whether Gavin get's it). but you might actually do somethingGavin (I don't know just how much integrity and imagination you have..(or lack) dotado)

Returning to the your comment Anrigaut.. the SFO?
It is a circus Anrigaut. The SFO is for the shop window... we've just seen old Mervyn's apologia for his absolute failure. He blames the banks, the (*)ankers, we have a conservative minister today blaming the indebted.. pass the parcel..
A resolution... they aren't intersted in a resolution.. they are actually watching the bottom line.. Mervyn is acting like Greenspan (who?) yes a good question... Who was Greenspan?. what is he doing now--- well he is sitting in his estate looking at his fish.. comfortably.. but it's like "Chinatown" there is a backwash... literally you can see t if you watch the movie.... the evidence/the shame bounces back... but these guys are protected....
.... thank-you Señor Corlett... lawyers take their sueldo de quien?

Is anybody taking responsibility? No. They look at their bank balance and feel secure.
We lost that privilege. A shock. We were with sharks.

You get the point. But let's not forget it. And neither am I forgetting it.

Try this for impressive music but also a message...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRe42BDK_R4

"Low spark high heel boys! = sharks.........

Girls.. I'm playing but also serious... who is the Guy that just got deposed from the iMF? I forget.. for sexual impropriety... Domique Strauss-Kahn (y Berlusconi- desgraciado)...
}
I'm in some piss-ante (my apologies for the expression) state in cono-sur------
I spent 5 hours yesterday and a few hours today listening to the political history according to some medium level politicos of some integrity... and the resultant understanding was depressing...
... I've been trying to involve myself for the past few months and all I see is, more or less, is opportunists trying to gain paypackets by means of cheap politics... and this characterises the whole country.. (Is the UK any different')-- but here it is so transparente que (that) you are almost sickened.. if not exactly that.... Get a grip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)))))))))))

Try Dylan, no it's Steve Miller perdon. "To the leaders who are timeless as they weave their warlike way wandering endlessly oe'r the wasteland seeking praise... " I started thinking of "Masters of war".

Anrigaut, I talk elliptically.. I'd liked Harvard's recent commentary over the profiteering of Springer etc with academic paper publishing..

The price of freedom is constant vigilance.... which president said that?

Finally, I stopped to buy some wine (that no doubt fuelled this posting) at a shop on the way home. I like chatting with the owner,,, and we have a theme.. and when we were finishing he stressed an opinion.. he stated it twice.. he said the "people" (most of the people" lack their own opinion and only respond to received opinion....... that is that they only react to that they hear through the media.. they are reactive not proacative....

I'm starting to create little waves here.... I see my 'work' as creating waves...

I'll leave you with that..

And thanks for all you work.

A question. What do we do now?


Catharsis

  • Brabander
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/05/2012 - 07:50

Sometimes getting things off your chest is cathartic.
I would prefer it however if you kept the personal attacks on your fellow victims of this fraud to the minimum needed to achieve your personal catharsis.
Aim your "guns" on the real perpetrators instead please.


The question is how you get "at" the perpetrators.

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 04/05/2012 - 18:14

How much experience do you have, Brabander?

You need allies to win.

What you don't need is apologists.

This makes for a rather acerbic environment.

Catharsis!

The political is personal. Don't forget it.

Everything is a matter of negotiation, contracts and power..... "fellow victims"? give me a break Brabander... Gavin isn't a victim... well I have difficulty imagining that... Gavin was culpable... get real Brabander.


Karen Millen questioned in connection with Kaupthing inquiries

  • glen07
  • 21/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/03/2012 - 20:57

Not sure where this article should go but glad the SFO is making further enquiries and gathering information about what went on -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/13/karen-millan-questioned-c...

Karen Millen questioned in connection with Kaupthing inquiries

Fashion designer among about a dozen entrepreneurs and bankers to have been questioned by prosecutors from Reykjavik

Karen Millen
Karen Millen has been questioned by prosecutors from Reykjavik in connection with alleged market manipulation at Kaupthing. Photograph: Simon Matthews/FilmMagic

Fashion designer Karen Millen is among about a dozen UK-based entrepreneurs and investment bankers questioned by criminal prosecutors from Reykjavik during a week-long visit to London, in connection with several inquiries into alleged market manipulation at the failed Icelandic bank Kaupthing.

In common with all those questioned, Millen is not believed to be a suspect but may have become unwittingly involved in trades in which market manipulation was allegedly orchestrated by top bosses at the bank. Bank managers deny wrongdoing.

Millen and her ex-husband, Kevin Stanford, who now runs fashion chain All Saints, are believed to have unwittingly become caught up in an alleged effort to manipulate the price of Kaupthing credit default swaps (CDSs) in late 2008. The prices of these credit derivatives – effectively, insurance contracts against Kaupthing going bust – were closely watched, as investors saw them as an important indicator of the bank's creditworthiness.

At the heart of the investigation are offshore investment vehicles stuffed with loans from Kaupthing that were nominally controlled by a handful of Kaupthing's largest clients, including Millen and Stanford. Investigators are looking at whether these vehicles were in fact used by Kaupthing executives to manipulate the price of CDSs and give a false impression of market confidence in the bank.

Many of Millen's investment interests remained closely linked to those of Stanford long after they split in 2001. Stanford had become a large customer of Kaupthing by 2008, as well as being its fourth largest shareholder. He was not interviewed by Icelandic authorities, despite previously accusing the bank's former management of market manipulation.

Stanford remains in a long-running legal dispute with Kaupthing administrators involving claims and counter-claims for hundreds of millions of pounds.

Also among those questioned by Icelandic investigators were bankers who had worked at Deutsche Bank in 2008, when the German group is said to have advised Kaupthing executives on CDS activities. The German bank has confirmed it is co-operating with investigators.

The inquiry into alleged CDS price manipulation had been actively pursued in the UK by the Serious Fraud Office, but the agency has since shifted the focus of its inquiries into Kaupthing elsewhere.

In March last year, the SFO and Icelandic prosecutors co-ordinated raids on homes and businesses linked to several Kaupthing bankers and the bank's largest clients, Mayfair property tycoon brothers Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz. All interviews by investigators from Reykjavik last week took place at the SFO's London offices.

Among those who attended were UK-based property investors Moises and Mendi Gertner. The brothers became the owners of a 2.5% holding in Kaupthing, but investigators are examining how the investment was financed. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the Gertners.


Thanks glen07. On re-reading

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 27/03/2012 - 07:53

Thanks glen07. On re-reading it, this article (which predates the Observer one and was posted earlier as a News item), does suggest that only some, but not all, of the SFO investigations relating to Kaupthing have been abandoned:

"The inquiry into alleged CDS price manipulation had been actively pursued in the UK by the Serious Fraud Office, but the agency has since shifted the focus of its inquiries into Kaupthing elsewhere."

Guess we just have to be patient.


"Circling of the wagons"

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 26/03/2012 - 08:16

Responding to my earlier comment on his blog, Ian Fraser says:

"It is very disturbing indeed. There are disturbing parallels between County NatWest (aka ‘Blue Arrow’) and what happened in the aftermath of the 1995 collapse of Barings Bank, a disgraceful episode which also set the agenda for future regulatory failure. Manchester University’s Ian Greener has written a fascinating report on the Barings situation –

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/managingandorganizations/downloads/Online%20ar...

As with ‘Blue Arrow’ there appears to have been a “circling of the wagons” (in contrast to the earlier Guinness trial which dud lead to four guilty convictions in 1990). ... "

http://www.ianfraser.org/has-the-uk-rediscovered-its-long-lost-appetite-...


Let's look at these facts...

  • follow_the_tao
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 24/03/2012 - 04:23

[ng] Post removed at request of one or more other members. Further posts with similar content may result in account being blocked.


IOM keys worried about low deposits

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 05/05/2012 - 11:14

The IOM keys are worried about the low level of deposits on the island

Discussion on the Manx forums

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/forum/3-local-news/