Status of £557k transfer to KSFUK

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 30/03/2009 - 18:27

I have examined the exchange of letters between the FSC and FSA posted today on the DAG site regarding the status/security of the £557k transfer (see question 4 of FSC letter dated 21/5/08).

I do not understand FSA's response dated 21/5/08 (see item c) to this question. Are there any bankers out there that are familiar with this banking jargon as this is an important issue?

0
Your rating: None

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

Best thing to do in the next 5 minutes

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 16:06

For anyone who hasnt already seen this and done so.

Add a comment here

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/477.html


Have you done this yet?

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 20:22

Add your comment if you havn't done so already

http://www.manxherald.com/index.php/business/477.html


Letter that has been sent to

  • expat
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 05:25

Letter that has been sent to Gordon Brown re interbank money, difficult to totally original but this is MY view of the situation and solution it merits.

Rt Hon Gordon Brown, MP
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA,
United Kingdom.
30 th March 2009.

Sir,

I am writing on behalf of my wife and small daughter to complain about the actions, or more to the point lack of actions, taken by HM treasury and by extension the UK Government with regard to depositors in Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander Isle of Man. Let me first outline our situation, I am fifty seven years old, married to a Russian national and father to a six year old daughter who is proudly a British subject. I have lived and worked in Russia for ten years, earning the UK professional fees as a Project Manager (I have been the Local director of two British consultancies, the Project Manager to the Moscow City Project and had my own Consultancy over the past three years), I have managed over $2 billion worth of projects, so I’ll leave it to you to reflect on how much I have earned the UK Treasury and how many UK jobs my work sustained. I have even given my free time to do presentations on behalf of the DTI to encourage the use of British services overseas. Over the past three years my wife and I have planned and worked hard to return to the UK so our daughter could be raised in a ‘civilised’ country and get a UK education (one which I was prepared to pay for). Last July we sold our house and my small consultancy business in Moscow and placed the money in an Austrian Bank in Moscow, all according to the law, with full legal documentation and taxes paid. As people resident in Russia we could not get a joint account in UK because in spite of assertions to the contrary by some of your colleagues, particularly Ian Pearson, we cannot have a UK account without proof of a UK address. I have, as a matter of interest, even offered to meet Ian Pearson at a bank of his choice and try to open an account without proof of a UK address. To no surprise to me the response has been a silence!

Nonetheless, as we watched the financial crisis unfold my wife, being Russian and very experienced at watching her countrymen steal the public’s money, argued vehemently that we needed to move the money to the UK, a country she trusted and had great regard for. As we could not transfer to UK, we did the next best thing (or so we thought) and placed the money in KSF on the Isle of Man. That action took place in September last year after we went to a great deal of trouble to get all the documents required to prove the legality of the money. Not an easy process in such a heavily bureaucratic country as Russia, particularly as a foreigner. Two weeks after the money was transferred I went to UK to purchase a home ready for our return this summer, a moment we had hoped for after ten very hard years in a very difficult country. To our horror, as I was briefing my solicitor as to which house we intended to purchase in the Cotswolds, the news broke that Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander was being put into administration in the UK So within a matter of ten days US$722,500, our money from the sale of our Russian home and business was out of our reach. By the way here’s another fact you might wish to be enlightened on, I tried to open a dollar account with Lloyds Bank, and to no great surprise they advised me it would have to be in their IoM branch! I use dollars because you cannot export rubles from Russia and banking is basically conducted in US$.

Our daughters future has now been put at serious risk, we are now stuck in Russia, with little prospect of being able to return to the UK, get a job or educate our daughter. We are now to some extent prisoners in Russia, two months away from being homeless and all as a result of an incompetent action by the UK, because let me make myself very clear, there was no reason to cause the failure of KSF IoM other than to further political aims that have now become so self evident with regards your views on offshore banking.

I make no particular case for such institutions except to say that the constant UK assertion of all of us being tax dodgers is not simply scandalous, but slanderous. There may well be some illegal acts going on, but they are not mine, nor many others. Perhaps it would be interesting to check what the Central Intelligence Agency thinks of the City of London? For your information they describe London as the biggest tax haven and money laundering centre on earth. So before representatives of HMG start throwing slanderous comments around perhaps they should check closer to home. There is even a House of Commons report on the subject with much the same conclusions.

Now the circumstances surrounding that event are on the surface complex, at time it seems justifiable and the closer we look the more incompetent, vindictive and outrageous they become. I have no doubt that Iceland was a problem child, I don’t doubt at there was reason for concern. I do not doubt the intentions to protect British savers. However, it is obvious the KSF was not in particular jeopardy other than from injudicious and intemperate remarks by a pair of senior ministers. The Chancellor and yourself. As to the actions taken and the competence of them I believe they are seriously questionable. But sticking to the circumstances as they affect my family and others let me explore this further.

It is now evident that The UK Government knew a long time in advance of a possible problem, at least as far back as March last year. On that basis I would be most surprised if that time was not used to plan, to assess the risks and consequences of the situation. Unless of course the UK regulators are incompetent, a case that we may also explore. The assertion that the UK did not inform the IoM of it’s intentions because it did not wish to forewarn the markets of a possible bank failure, is probably the most stupid response I can imagine. What is the purpose of the FSA? To sit and watch, collect their over inflated salaries and go home? Yet again the attitudes of the UK Government and it’s officials is deplorable and casts serious doubts about he agenda being worked to here. Our money was in that bank for about two weeks Prime Minister, before the UK authorities put KSF into administration. You knew of the potential problem and I didn’t, as the Prime Minister of my country that is indefensible sir. You have let me and many others down; you have jeopardized my daughter’s future as a UK citizen. All the talk of protecting prudent savers is as a Scotch mist. This was an entirely preventable fiasco as far as KSF IoM was concerned.

Over ten thousand prudent British and foreign national savers placed their money in an IoM based bank operating under the IoM's own regulator, the FSC. Lets be clear here as well, over 70% of the accounts held have less than 50 thousand pounds in them. This is evidently not the bank of a horde of rich tax dodgers. Another fact is that 30% of depositors are residents of the Isle of Man. As we understand it following talks with the UK’s FSA, working under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding that should indicate a degree of co-operation and honesty, the FSC working with the bank's directors, elected to move over half a million pounds of depositors money to an Icelandic bank located in London UK, and under the jurisdiction of the UK Authorities. Incredibly our deposits were placed in that bank without any priority 'ring fencing' or security, which effectively meant that ten thousand retail deposits were 'downgraded' to wholesale deposits, but under the watchful and one assumes honourable eye, of the UK’s regulators. This was done, according to the UK Treasury, on a commercial basis - i.e., by so placing the money without protection, the KSFIoM directors could gain a 'little' more profit on this deposit. Not only was this done at a time when Icelandic banking institutions were under increased scrutiny, but the FSC and others have claimed that it was (is) common practice to 'upstream' monies to a parent company in this manner, there being no inter banking on the IoM. So certainly the IOM regulators look incompetent don’t they? But what of the role the UK’s FSA played in this?

Any cursory look at the circumstances surrounding this transfer to UK will note that the UK Government instigated this scandal; it presented no opposition to placing more than 50% of KSFIoM's assets in the UK bank, and offered the FSC no indication of the action it was intending to take. British regulators working to a different and I would suggest vindictive agenda, what sort of co-operation is that? Is this an example of compliance in spirit and deed with the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the UK and IoM? Certainly not, in fact the whole episode reeks of pre-planned actions and duplicity by the FSA, how very convenient to have half a million pounds of Isle of Man money, my and 10,000 others money, at a time when your own attitude towards offshore was known to be hostile. How very convenient that FSA officials, I this case Hector Sant, wrote such wooly, pretentious letters that do not address the question asked,” is it safe to place the money in UK”?
According to evidence presented recently by FSC CEO John Aspden, to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee (HoC TSC), the FSC decided, in March 2008, that there could be no exposure of KSF (IOM) funds to Iceland; and set out to find a ‘safe haven’ for £500+ million. Self evidently the choices were global, so why were they apparently bewitched by the siren calls of the FSA to look no further than the ‘sister’ bank in London.
What information and assurances, if any, were provided by the FSA to the FSC? Hector Sants gave evidence to the HoC TSC that, in effect, contradicted some of the evidence presented, to the Committee, by Mr. Aspden. So we already have a case where somebody is being a touch liberal with the truth.
A letter sent by the FSC to the FSA, dated 21st May 2008, asked four questions; the forth being about a possible inter bank placing, between the IOM and London, and asking for information on the liquidity regime and the ability to repay the money. A reply had been issued on the same day, providing the information requested, but did it answer the question is the contention I have..
Mr. Sants of the FSA has stated that the purpose of the letter was to confirm the liquidity regime, but whether or not it provided sufficient enough assurance to the FSC, was a matter for them to decide. An incredible statement displaying a total disregard for depositors on the IoM and avoiding the issue at hand, as he so obviously recognized. If he didn’t recognize the situation he should be dismissed as incompetent. He also stated that as the host regulator it was not for the FSA to make judgments on the information provided; but just to provide it. What sort of attitude is that? A clearly evasive answer and evasive attitude by Mr. Sants, one has to question his suitability for his position here, this is not the sort of professionalism one should expect from a senior regulator of the UK. The FSA made no attempt to suggest to the FSC that other moves were possibly in the offing. That is a disgraceful disregard of depositor’s rights and flies in the face of any concept of good governance. Is this what the UK taxpayer gets for their hard earned money?
Mr. Sants was also asked if he was sure that no approaches had been made to KSF (UK) suggesting the need to increase assets and were any attempts made to influence a transfer of funds, from the IOM to London. Mr. Sants response was emphatically negative on this point. The Committee also asked if it had all the correspondence related to the matter, to which Mr. Sants replied that to the “best of his knowledge” they did. What a very inexact answer from a highly paid government official.
Mr. Sants also made the point that he had met with the FSC and that no suggestion that any encouragement had been made in respect of the transfer was made; therefore he was “mystified” where the suggestion had come from. As Mandy Rice –Davis once said so memorably ‘he would say that wouldn’t he”.
So the evidence given by he UK Regulator is that neither the FSC nor KSF (IOM) was encouraged or cajoled to make the transfer. In other words what on earth were the purposes of the meetings and letters then? To pass the time of day? It’s preposterous to conclude that the FSA did not give signals in one form or another, unless the FSC and The KSF IoM directors were totally blind to the ongoing situation, which evidently they were not as the exchanges took place. That their judgment was poor and they did not see the lack of conviction in the FSA’s loosely worded letters is another issue.
And yet it is all so unconvincing, what we are hearing is an evasive, wooly series of responses, no real evidence of the co-operation demanded by the Memorandum of Understanding and certainly an attitude that reflects badly on the FSA as well as the FSC. The whole mess seems to be indicative of the staggering regulatory failure that has done such damage to the UK banking system and economy. An unfettered, laissez faire approach of the worst kind, bordering on the reckless and incompetent.
So we are either dealing with a pre planned move or staggering levels of incompetence and negligence at the FSA aren’t we. I would proffer the opinion that these actions reflect very badly on the motivations and level of professionalism of HMG. Certainly from my wife’s perspective, a woman who believed the UK to be a nation of honesty and trust, a nation that looked after it’s citizen’s and acted honourably, a nation in fact that she wished to be a part of, her confidence and admiration for the UK have been severely effected by this. The damage done by the actions of the UK are such that she now regards the UK as a nation of pirates worse than her own. I can’t say I feel a great deal better about my homeland’s government myself.

So the constant statement from your good offices that this is all a matter for the Isle of Man Government simply has no credibility whatsoever. In fact it is flying in the face of the truth and a blatant attempt to avoid responsibility for your actions. So very noticeable in the appalling performances of both the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, and Lord Bach at the recent Treasury Select Committee sessions on this matter. But of course this duplicity goes deeper than simply not informing the IoM’ s FSC of the actions the FSA were going to take, it also covers the dreadful acts in the negotiations with Iceland,. How on earth can the UK Government possibly justify negotiating on behalf of the IOM as it is bound, and not getting an agreement for 100% debt cover by Iceland? Is that protecting the rights of a UK Territory? To leave them high and dry at the negotiation table? No that is the act of a vindictive bully sir, an atrocious act by the UK which has lowered the nations esteem even further in my eyes and certainly that of the foreign nationals caught up in this badly executed debacle.

The UK Government has done nothing to assist the resolution of this matter, but has sat before the TSC doing it’s best to uphold its indefensible position, one which makes it clear that it is more than happy to abandon depositors to their fate. The FSC made an enormous error of judgment; they claim that moving the asset from Iceland to the UK was to protect it from Icelandic influence, that it seemed a good idea at the time according to John Aspden. An extraordinary act under the circumstances, unless it trusted it’s UK counterpart which seems to be the biggest mistake of all. The Governments of the UK and the Isle of Man need to accept their joint responsibility in this affair; they are, between them, the only Governance we have in this.
It may be of interest to briefly review the relationship between the UK and the IoM here. The IoM is a crown dependency, independently administered and does not form part of the UK. However, it is a possession of the British crown and not a sovereign nation. It is treated as part of the UK for British nationality law, and the British government is responsible for it’s defence and international representation. The power to pass laws affecting the island rests with it’s legislative assemblies.
Westminster retains the right to legislate for the island against their will, though this power is rarely used. That is the case in-spite of statements to French journalists to the contrary. Many key officials are also appointed by the British government. As a result, the exact nature of the relationship between the crown dependencies and the UK is hard to pinpoint. However, the 1973 Kilbrandon report concluded that the UK government is ultimately responsible for the islands' good governance. The Ministry of Justice now has responsibility for them. Interesting to note that the residents of the IoM are British citizens in law and the UK can enforce legislation if it feels the need. So if you feel so strongly about the offshore banking and compensation issues why don’t you do something instead of washing your hands of us and claiming you have no jurisdiction when palpably you have? I note that The Tax Network has also written to the HM Treasury on this matter.
In response on 3rd May 2000 in the House of Lords: to a Written Question by Baroness Strange enquiring as to the meaning and scope of the Crown's responsibility for the good government of the Crown Dependencies, Lord Bach, for the Government, replied 'The Crown is ultimately responsible for the good government of the Crown Dependencies’.
‘If the UK Parliament was unable to impose legislation upon the Isle of Man it would have 'responsibility without power'. It’s a good point. It is important to note that the UK is ultimately responsible for the Island's sovereign debt – the bank of last resort must surely be the Bank of England. Given the Government's ultimate responsibility for the good governance of this Crown Dependency, so why is the UK refusing to financially support a timely and full return to depositors? Why is the UK refusing to return the half a million pounds to the IoM? It is pointless to suggest that the IoM’s GDP is far less than the liabilities of its banks, as the UK and the USA are in much the same position. Why this has happened of course is a matter of a long debate.
Can Lord Bach explain why Mr. Patrick Bourke told the Justice Committee Meeting that he was unqualified to represent the Isle of Man in discussions with the Iceland? Why did a senior Ministry of Justice minister not represent the Island's constitutional rights by attending those critically important discussions undertaken during a severe banking crisis? A lack of genuine interest in a solution perhaps? And Lord Bach had the audacity to contend that depositor’s rights were being safeguarded!
So let us continue to explore this sorry saga, because it now seems that HM Treasury is now breaking its own rules. The media is reporting that a Mr. David Whelan is to have returned to him, following intervention by the Chancellor and Mr. Whelan’s MP (whose response to one constituent on this matter is arrogant in the extreme I may add), approximately 50 million pounds which he had deposited in KSF, rubbing salt into 10,000 wounds in the process. If less than 100% of depositors' funds are realised when KSF is wound up, this will effectively transfer money that may belong to other creditors to Mr. Whelan. Is that a fair and reasonable action may I ask? Mr. Darling recently called for government to show some humility; clearly he is at odds with the meaning of the word.

This early payment makes a mockery of Paul Myners assertion, in a recent letter to depositors, that under UK insolvency law all creditors are treated equally. We are always told that the law takes precedence! This is clearly not the case when influential depositors in KSF can be rescued at the drop of the Chancellor’s hat. However, HM Treasury has now set a precedent, there is evidently no impediment to HM treasury returning the money frozen by Statutory Instrument 2674 in full to its rightful owners, just as Mr. Whelan's money will be on or before the 24th of March, as it is obviously within their power to do so as we will discuss later.

Spin will of course demand that the government will claim that it is saving and/or creating thousands of jobs. A laudable enough aim on its face, but what about the livelihood of depositors? I expect many depositors in KSF IOM, like me, have had to cut back their spending quite drastically. Some have been made homeless; my family is close to that point. What about the business accounts held in KSF IoM? Don’t they matter? Surely this costs jobs and homes at a time when governments around the world are desperate for people to spend their money to reflate the global economy.

As I write it appears that the case of Mr. Whelan isn’t the only piece of string pulling going on though. In your own constituency we have the case of the Dunfirmline Building Society.- why is it that this building society, with assets of £3.3 billion, can have its sale organised over the weekend, when KSF UK with assets of £4.7 billion (and therefore the same size) can't complete any form of due diligence within SIX MONTHS. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Any buyer of DBS is going to perform due diligence on the asset register to form an opinion on value - this is exactly the process that E&Y (process is fully under control of HMG) is undertaking and the outcome is absolutely crucial in providing comfort such that depositors and IOMG can agree a process for the return of their deposits. Also, why should the FSCS cover Dunfirmline? People deposited money there on the basis of a £50k / person backstop limit (same as Kaupthing Edge etc). Scotland has a different legal system from England and Wales. If you change the law retrospectively for England and Scotland, then why not include IOM as well? There is a very strong moral obligation for HMG to fully compensate British Citizens who deposited funds in IOM. Curioser and curioser!!

There is also the matter of over a hundred questions that have been asked in the House of Commons on this issue and the lack of answers that has been forthcoming. As I have no doubt you are aware MPs such as Sir John Butterfill are less than enthusiastic about the response, or lack of it they get. Why is that, why the never ending reply ‘this is a matter for the IoM’, when everyone knows that it was a UK action that divorced us from our own money? As the great Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out, no matter how a government is founded, the consent of the governed is the only legitimate foundation on which a government can rest. That means accountability to the public sir, So the silence is a totally unacceptable stance, particularly in the light of the next subject I wish to address.

Let me turn our attention to a little matter of ethics. Here are two reports regarding the astonishingly similar matter of money held in the USA and Lehman’s. A classic example of double standards if ever there was one!! On a par with the Chancellors treatment of Mr. Whelan!

Report A
Labour Party Conference - Manchester September 2008
Lehman's European headquarters which is based in London often remitted money
from its London HQ to its parent company in New York where the money kept
overnight accrued interest and sent back the following morning to London.
On Sunday when Lehman filed for bankruptcy, Lehman Europe found that it was
down by $8 billion as the money failed to arrive leaving the employees and
creditors high and dry.

Prime Minister Gordon who would be visiting the US on Wednesday said he will
push the US to help return $8 billion from failed investment bank Lehman
Brothers to its staff in Britain.
Speaking at the Labour's annual conference in Manchester he said, "We are
asking and working with the American government to get that money back to
pay salaries, not of high-flying financiers, but of cleaners and people who
are computer operators who would otherwise be denied their money."

Report B
Published: September 20, 2008 19:33h
Labour Party Conference - Manchester September 2008
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said on Saturday he was pushing the
United States to help get $8 billion from the failed U.S. investment bank
Lehman Brothers to its staff in Britain.
Administrators winding up Lehman's European business have questioned why $8
billion was transferred to New York just before the bank collapsed. There
have been fears among Lehman's 4,500 staff in London they may not get their
final pay packets.
"We are asking and working with the American government to get that money
back to pay salaries, not of high-flying financiers, but of cleaners and
people who are computer operators who would otherwise be denied their
money," Brown told delegates at the ruling Labour party's annual conference.

It is to some extent pointless commenting on these quotes, it is such a blatant case of double standards that words fail me!! However I suppose needs must so I will point out that this is such an extraordinary situation of double standards and hypocrisy that it really does bring into doubt the reasons for the HMG’s actions in refusing to return our money to the IOM where it belongs. What is good for the goose is evidently not good for the gander is it? This is not a position I expect from an honourable Prime Minister.
There is also the little matter of how Statutory Instrument 2674 and the UK human rights act 1998 (part II, First Protocol, Article 1, protection of property), are consistent with each other. Another contradiction in terms, and display of double standards in this debacle.
You stated in Prime Ministers Question time on the 10th of December that “not one depositor actually lost any money in Britain”. That is an inaccurate statement sir, the savers with deposits in KSFIOM have lost money in Britain. Many like me are British, funds that belong to us have been seized by the UK government in the UK.
Finally, on the Labour Party's donation web page (4) it says “Help us campaign for a fairer Britain. No matter how large or small the contribution, every penny will make a difference.” Sadly I was foolish enough to believe such nonsense a few years ago and am responsible for helping to put this Government into power. Needless to say I am ashamed of that government now, a sad situation for somebody steeped in the Labour Party and with a grandmother and father who were such great supporters of the party.
A generally held perception is that HMG is smearing the Isle of Man as being a "Tax Haven", a place where people put their ill-gotten gains to evade tax. It is well known that the UK Government receives large tax revenues from offshore jurisdictions owing to the EUSD tax rules that exist. These taxes have been ramping up over the last few years. The UK Government is using this as a diversion tactic to cover up their own ineptitude, it’s simply a smokescreen and it seems many are beginning to realize it.

The UK Government have brought about the collapse of a number of Icelandic owned banks, has put over 10,000 depositors into financial hardship, has brought the Icelandic economy crashing down, and is now attempting to undermine and damage the reputation of offshore jurisdictions. All this to cover up the fact that economic policy for the past decade has been based on smoke and mirrors, creating nothing more than a Credit Bubble. All this to try to counter the unpopularity of the Government! I would have thought that some decent policies and actions would have bee called for instead of the popularist PR campaign and silence on the KSF situation that has been waged. Shameful sir, truly shameful and it is dragging the UK’s reputation through the mud in the process. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the IoM Government and they are not as pure as the driven snow or particularly dynamic, this bullying is most unedifying.
So finally what can be done here to satisfy all parties? Looking at clause 27 of the Statutory Instrument 2674 order that put KSF UK into administration is where I suggest the answer lies.
Clause 27 is noted herewith:

'Moratorium on payment to related companies
27.—(1) Kaupthing shall not make any payment, dispose of any property or modify or release any right or liability to or for the benefit of a related party without the prior consent of the Treasury, and any such purported payment, disposal, modification or release shall be void.
(2) No related party shall exercise any right of set-off or combination of accounts in respect of any debt owing by Kaupthing without the consent of the Treasury, and any such purported exercise shall be void.
(3) In this article, “related party” means any member of the same group as Kaupthing that is not a subsidiary undertaking of Kaupthing.
0A
(4) In paragraph (1), if Kaupthing is in administration, the reference to Kaupthing is to be treated as a reference to the administrator.
(5) In paragraph (3), “group” has the meaning given by section 421 of the 2000 Act.'

What is self evident and I may say somewhat dubious is that HM Treasury has reserved power to itself over KSF UK and it's Administrator with regard to payments, disposals, modifications and releases. Quite simply HM Treasury is also empowered to reverse that and return the money to IoM forthwith. That would satisfy the depositors, stand squarely with your avowed intent to get he USA to return Lehman’s money, what a wonderful example this would set and restore faith in the honourable actions and lack of vindictiveness in the UK Government and it’s Prime Minister.

I make no apologies for the terseness of this letter, it is simply how I and many others feel about this issue. I crave no ones indulgence, I will fight fiercely as a good father and husband for my family. I have watched my wife live on tranquilizers and my daughter suffer asthma attacks as a consequence of knowing our lives have been so seriously affected. But I will keep my dignity in this fight for what is right and what is mine. Your actions to date prejudice my young daughter’s future and health sir, that is unacceptable to me and needs to be redressed, I look forward to an honourable conclusion to this outrageous debacle.

Yours Faithfully

Stephen Thomas

c.c. by email to:

A Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer
D Cameron, Leader of the Opposition
A Brown, Chief Minister IoM
A Bell, Treasury Minister IoM


expat's letter

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 13:44

My, I will never again feel guilty about the length of some of my letters and statements!

Thanks for the letter, expat. I take it that your wife no longer trusts the UK government. In common with most of the electorate, I certainly don't.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I use the word "trust" in the widest sense including that of:
(i) being truthful (which the UK government most certainly has not been) and
(ii) trusting them to do the right thing (which the UK government most certainly has not) and
(iii) trusting them to right a wrong that has been done when it is within its powers to do so (which the UK government most certainly has not done) and
(iv) stepping in to prevent an injustice being done (which the UK government most certainly has not done) and
(v) putting its hands up to its own mistakes (which the UK government most certainly has not done) and
(vi) accepting responsibility when it is plainly at fault (which the UK government certainly has not done).

Just as an exercise, can anyone think of any action or inaction by the UK government in this whole matter in which it has actually done the right thing or not done the wrong thing?


Re re - Manx Herald + Expats letter of 31/03/2009

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 12:28

Further to the letter to Jack Straw sent to Manx Herald - I thought Expat's letter above might be sent to newspapers too, assuming he has not objection.


Expat´s letter

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 13:12

First of all, Expat, an excellent letter.

It has been some time since I have seen reference to copying correspondence or hounding the Royal Family regarding our plight. Ok, it is unlikely to obtain results, but we have to try all avenues.

Isle of Man Head of State is the Queen. Suggest copying letter to her.

Some months ago I emailed Prince Andrew (who had visited the IOM around that time) and spoke with his private secretary who assured me that he was aware & concerned, and was considering if and how he could assist.

Worth a second round of assaults on them?

IMO we need to continue to remind all of GB´s statement that all jurisdictions should vouchsafe savers, and yet he not only triggered the demise of KSF IOM, but to date has failed to do anything to protect the savers affected according to his own sermon to the world. IOM is a Crown Dependency - there can be no excuses.


Ditto Prince Andrew

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 15:52

Another waste of space and time.
6 months on and his secretary says he is considering how he can help?
A second round of golf is the most thing he is likely to consider.


Waste of time

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 15:49

Its a complete and utter waste of time to write to the Queen.

Almost anything is a better option

Sign the sealed paper petition.

Write to your MEP representative ( i can tell you who they are if you dont know)

Write AGAIN to your MP.

Alternately watch the TV or stare at the wall writing to the Queen will achieve nothing.


Bellyup

  • icdbrazil
  • 10/10/08 30/11/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 16:10

I did start by saying unlikely to bring results, but worth trying all avenues. I would, perhaps naively, like to think that anything we can do that might make them feel as uncomfortable as possible helps!

You jump to conclusions:

FYI all relevant petitions signed, have written various times to MP & MEP reps as well as constant bombarding of a host of others in Government and also the press.

Trust that you are doing likewise.


@icd brazil

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 02/04/2009 - 17:27

I am indeed as I am sure we all are.

I think it would take a H bomb to make the House of Windsor uncomfortable. They really are on another planet and have no real connection with the general public.

Some MPs too Im afraid or they wouldn't be giving themselves every drop of gravy they can soak out of their jobs while the rest of the country faces recession and hardships.


Bravo

  • Kevin Platt
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/04/2009 - 15:15

Excellent statement of your (and our) situation.

Do not expect a direct reply from anyone in Government, they will have "passed it on to the Justice Department" or "passed it on to the Treasury".

I am afraid we are dealing with the worst leaders in living memory.


Expat - Herculean letter!!

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/04/2009 - 03:57

You deserve the best!
Hope everyone gets to see letter and it doesn't disappear.


Whilst wishing you luck for a reply...

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 01/04/2009 - 02:01

.....remember GB has been anti-"expat" from the early days, putting them in the same league as tax-avoiders. You will recall that in his first budget as Chancellor he abolished the 365-days tax rule. Whilst catching out one or two high-profile people, it had the consequence that employing British engineers on shorter-term overseas construction contracts became uneconomic; so engineers from other countries were employed - and guess which countries materials they specified and used; another blow for UK manufacturing. This is a man who is unable to see (sic) the consequences of his actions, and certainly not to admit he's wrong.


DAG STRATEGY TEAM - PLEASE NOTE

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 14:38

Dear Expat,

An excellent letter, and I sincerely hope one GB's staff has the good conscience to put it in his hand for him to actually read!

Kind regards,

Mike

NOTE FOR DAG STRATEGY TEAM

Could you please post Expat letter on the public site as an open letter to the PM and pass it to the Press with a challenge to publish?


Hear, hear expat.

  • anrigaut
  • 19/10/08 30/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 09:30

I have taken the liberty to include an extract from your excellent letter, together with a link to this site, in a letter sent today to Nick Clegg, leader of the Lib Dems, to whom you appear not to have sent a copy. Though I no longer have voting rights in UK, I have previously written several times to Nick Clegg, as MP for my last UK constituency, and had one sympathetic but otherwise non-useful reply from his 'correspondence manager'.

Here is my latest letter:

Dear Mr Clegg,

Following my letter addressed to your office yesterday (30 March) in your role as MP to my former UK constituency, I am taking the liberty to write to you again, this time as the leader of what I believe to be a significant and serious party of Opposition (and one which I would probably choose to vote for were I to return to reside in UK).

Time is fast running out for the thousands of hard-working and retired British citizens whose life's savings have largely and brutally disappeared following the demise of KSF-IOM precipitated by the actions of HMG in putting KSF-UK into administration. Many of these now find themselves, through no fault of their own, in situations far worse than my own simply because - as expatriats unable to open accounts in UK mainland banks or simply as residents of the IoM- they put their trust in a highly rated bank in a Crown Dependency, only to be totally and cruelly abandoned by the UK government in a time of crisis.

I would beg you to take the time to read the detailed letter sent by one such depositor to the Prime Minister and posted today on the KSFIOM Depositors' Action Group (DAG) website at http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/forum-topic/status-£557k-transfer-ksfuk (see "Letter that has been sent to ...", posted by expat).

The following is a quote from that letter:

"The UK Government has done nothing to assist the resolution of this matter, but has sat before the TSC doing it’s best to uphold its indefensible position, one which makes it clear that it is more than happy to abandon depositors to their fate. The FSC made an enormous error of judgment; they claim that moving the asset from Iceland to the UK was to protect it from Icelandic influence, that it seemed a good idea at the time according to John Aspden. An extraordinary act under the circumstances, unless it trusted it’s UK counterpart which seems to be the biggest mistake of all. The Governments of the UK and the Isle of Man need to accept their joint responsibility in this affair; they are, between them, the only Governance we have in this.

It may be of interest to briefly review the relationship between the UK and the IoM here. The IoM is a crown dependency, independently administered and does not form part of the UK. However, it is a possession of the British crown and not a sovereign nation. It is treated as part of the UK for British nationality law, and the British government is responsible for it’s defence and international representation. The power to pass laws affecting the island rests with it’s legislative assemblies.
Westminster retains the right to legislate for the island against their will, though this power is rarely used. That is the case in-spite of statements to French journalists to the contrary. Many key officials are also appointed by the British government. As a result, the exact nature of the relationship between the crown dependencies and the UK is hard to pinpoint. However, the 1973 Kilbrandon report concluded that the UK government is ultimately responsible for the islands' good governance. The Ministry of Justice now has responsibility for them. Interesting to note that the residents of the IoM are British citizens in law and the UK can enforce legislation if it feels the need. So if you feel so strongly about the offshore banking and compensation issues why don’t you do something instead of washing your hands of us and claiming you have no jurisdiction when palpably you have? I note that The Tax Network has also written to the HM Treasury on this matter.

In response on 3rd May 2000 in the House of Lords: to a Written Question by Baroness Strange enquiring as to the meaning and scope of the Crown's responsibility for the good government of the Crown Dependencies, Lord Bach, for the Government, replied 'The Crown is ultimately responsible for the good government of the Crown Dependencies’. ‘If the UK Parliament was unable to impose legislation upon the Isle of Man it would have 'responsibility without power'. It’s a good point. It is important to note that the UK is ultimately responsible for the Island's sovereign debt – the bank of last resort must surely be the Bank of England. Given the Government's ultimate responsibility for the good governance of this Crown Dependency, so why is the UK refusing to financially support a timely and full return to depositors? Why is the UK refusing to return the half a million pounds to the IoM?"

Although your expressions of personal sympathy for my situation are appreciated, I feel strongly that the Opposition parties have been lamentably slow in coming forward to explore, expose and condemn the unacceptable behaviour of the present government in this matter. May I respectfully suggest that NOW, if ever, is the time for decisive action to right the wrong that has been done. I implore you to stand up and be counted in the defence of the victims of an uncaring and opportunistic government.

Yours respectfully,

xxx


Stephen - If the prime minister reads your letter

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 09:28

I really hope that Gordon Brown reads your letter. If he does surely he will do the decent thing and intervene to sort this mess out as soon as possible.


"half a billion"

  • kiwi38
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 09:03

Expat, there are three references to "half a million pounds" in your letter above which should be "half a billion".


Good stuff Steve

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 08:34

.. but sadly we are dealing with a man who is happy for his ministers to scam the taxpayer out of tens of thousands of pounds a year on pretend "second homes" and watching porno movies!
Lets see what April brings - the TSC report and any announcement from Ernst and Young.
I wouldn't be surprised if - after the 6 months E&Y due diligence - we see the rest of KSFUK parked in one of Gordon's own banks and the rest of us paid off. Seems to make sense to me given the relatively high return talked about from KSFUK.


Re Status of GBP557k transfer to KSFUK -

  • sabi Star
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 04:28

Where can these letters be found on site? Can't find them . Thanks


FSC / FSA Letters

  • Nixi
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 06:44

They are here.. look out for the fact that the pages are not in the right order (that's how they came).
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/public-page/letters-between-fsc-and-fsa-...


Question 4 of FSC letter

  • expatvictim
  • 10/10/08 01/11/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 31/03/2009 - 03:28

I'm not a banker either, can any one tell if question 4 of the FSC letter is answered in the FCSA response?. Seems a critical piece of information to have an answer to before placing 500k in another bank. Begs the question, If they did not get an answer, why did they (FSC) still go ahead with the transfer?