MOU between @CityPoliceFraud and @TheFCA dated 2017. Prior ones exist. Disturbing to say the least. I outline why below. Pages 1-4 here, pages 5-7 below... @TransparencyTF @True_and_FairUK @andyverity @TV_PCC @CarshaltonArt @markbishopuk @MarkTaber_FII @CommonsTreasury
Of note: 1. FSMA, the legislation used repeatedly by the FCA to conceal & deny, is prominent. 2. Whole of section 2 of MOU is problematic. It seeks to limit information flow, particularly restrictions it establishes in respect to information flow from the FCA to COLP......
Para 2.6 - Enables FCA to withold info from COLP. States FCA must not disclose confidential info relating to business affairs of any person received by FCA for purposes of discharge of its functions, without consent of person it obtained it from or person to whom it relates.....
This would enable FCA to withold evidence of criminality, or not provide it to COLP without permission of the person that the evidence incriminates. What person in that position is going to give permission to share information that incriminates them?....
Para 2.7 b) "permits (but does not oblige) FCA to disclose information for purposes of any criminal investigation, criminal proceedings or for purposes of initiating or bringing to an end any such investigation or proceedings or facilitating a determination of .......
whether it or they should be initiated or brought to an end.” Herein lies the problem, it gives the FCA authority to bring a criminal investigation to an end, or even if they should be initiated. The FCA intervened to prevent criminal investigation into FX marks at LBG in 2016...
Here are extracts from my emails with COLP officer that I met with in 2016 and presented him with unequivocal evidence of FX fraud by Lloyds in respect to excessive and undisclosed mark ups. I reported to COLP after the FCA said they had no jurisdiction in respect to fraud.....
COLP officer confirms he opened crime report but then confirms that the reason for not proceeding to criminal investigation was because the FCA took no action. This was disturbing for numerous reasons and I replied to seek clarification.....
Ignore for a moment the statement by FCA in there; "there is no suitable individual at the FCA in a position to give an opinion”. This is the regulator & they told me that there's nobody at FCA suitable to determine if my protected disclosures did represent breach of FCA codes...
The FCA had refused to tell me anything in response to my disclosures regarding excessive and undisclosed mark ups claiming a) Spot FX was not within their scope because it was an unregulated product and b) the fraud represented by this was not within their scope.....
In response to my email and questions the COLP Officer replied with this. He confirms that he spoke to the FCA and that they told him that they would not be taking any action in respect to these matters, and thats reason for no criminal investigation.....
However, and most disturbingly he says "For obvious reasons that is all we are told.". Why is it obvious that the police would not be told all there was to know about this FCA position and what they had or had not done, and why?Police trump regulators don't they?
What FCA failed to tell the COLP was a) Spot FX was unregulated and therefore they had no scope to act in any event, and b) they had no jurisdiction in respect to fraud. This was fraud and the FCA knew it and here they were dishonestly & actively preventing fraud investigation...
To be clear, here is how Lloyds were advertising their FX services and charges to customers. 'No charge' for Spot FX transactions and 'No charge' for FX Forward exchange contracts. It is clear and unequivocal.....
WHEREAS, the official LBG Pricing Policy called the FM Pricing Framework had a price matrix (table) that determined the maximum amount of mark up (aka 'AV' (Added Value)) sales persons could take on a 'whatever you can get away with basis up to 3.3%....
Indeed, for basic Spot FX transactions of even more than £5mio sales persons were entitled to take up to 1.92%. That's a £96,000 charge for a basic £5mio Spot FX transaction that has zero counterparty or credit risk for bank and costs bank less than $20.....
The same pricing policy, incredibly, states "clients should receive pricing that provides value, is fair and transparent" and encourages "a client centric culture and appropriate behaviours". However, that is not the worst part of this policy that made protected disclosures about
It also says "In highly competitive markets where clients are sophisticated, highly price sensitive... AV may not be charged. Where AV is charged, for smaller less sophisticated customers, AV is limited to a set level..." No. It was an obscene level.....
And that passage confirms that the pricing to clients is specific to how 'price sensitive' the customer was. This actually means how aware the customer was of the true price. The more aware you were as a customer, the cheaper the price. The less aware, the higher the price....
Fraud. Yet FCA prevented criminal investigation by failing to disclose info to COLP who were content to let the FCA withold vital info. Para 2.8 says that confidential info received by COLP from FCA remains subject to statutory restrictions but also requires consent from FCA...
before it can be shared. Para 2.10 says that even in event that either COLP or FCA receives legally enforceable demand to disclose information, they will notify the other party PRIOR to disclosure & give the other party 5 business days notice prior to complying with the demand...
Worst of all is this passage;
"The party receiving the demand agrees to use its best efforts to assert such appropriate legal exemptions or privileges with respect to such information as may be available.” They actively agree to do all they can to prevent disclosure of info...
There is no mention that the parties must do whatever it takes to disclose as much information as is possible, only mention of maximising efforts to withold or conceal as much information as is possible. And they do this to incredibly good effect as we are all well aware....
Para 2.11 states that certain information can be labelled ’sensitive’ & no forward disclosure is permitted without prior consent. I understand this should apply in respect to information provided by COLP to FCA, but this shouldn't apply to information provided by The FCA to COLP
It is an MOU that affords the ability to conceal and prevent investigation. And the FCA and COLP are abusing it to the detriment of the public and the wider economy.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Paul Carlier

Paul Carlier Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Carlier_J87

23 Feb
One of the biggest failings of the @TheFCA IRHP Review (of many) was that it denied victims the right to see the evidence provided to the IRHP review by the banks..... @APPGbanking @appgonpbandffs @jameshurley @True_and_FairUK @TransparencyTF @CarshaltonArt
I'm therefore concerned that the BBRS terms state there is an obligation on the customer who 'must' disclose information, but that the bank 'can' provide information. This is disturbing and open to the same abuses used in the IRHP Review and as routine by FOS......
Furthermore, the terms do not oblige the BBRS to share all information received from the bank with the customer and, perhaps worse still, appear to allow the BBRS discretion to ask the bank for only the information that it the BBRS deems relevant. WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL....
Read 7 tweets
23 Feb
@Law360 reports Judge strikes out case of 8 UK councils represented by @HausfeldGlobal vs Barclays over LIBOR rigging. Judge relies upon the various case law that has been obtained by the banks in prior cases including PAG. Case law that represents a dishonest illusion...
Banks have cherry picked cases to defend in Court that they know they can defeat because the pleadings or arguments put forward, allow them to defeat the claims by creating a dishonest illusion as to what truly went on, but without technically being dishonest....
Read 9 tweets
8 Feb
Andrew Bailey facing the @CommonsTreasury . Observations, tagging @TheFCA and @hmtreasury and @bankofengland @BoE_PressOffice @APPGbanking @appgonpbandffs ......
Bailey already veering down the route he wants to take this, as opposed to addressing the issues before him. The failings were not reliant upon 'core' changes to address. The failings were basic.
You don't need structural reform or change to address many of the failings. Simply upholding the codes and taking appropriate action, which is the FCA's role, is a basic and minimum standard.
Read 26 tweets
8 Feb
'Build to rent' aka opposite of fair distribution of wealth, returning property ownership to the top 1%, and one of the biggest dangers to growth in the UK. @graingerplc heavily involved despite their role in destruction of property firms by Lloyds BSU... propertyinvestortoday.co.uk/breaking-news/…
Home ownership by individuals generates substantial inheritance annually. Inheritance and wealth that is re-distributed to multiple members of families and invariably generating significant consumption and help to younger family members to own their own property......
'Build to rent' is seeing substantial & ever growing numbers of properties being built by large 'funds', and with Government funding to do it. These funds own the completed properties which will never be available for the public to buy, and receive the lucrative rents from them
Read 12 tweets
7 Feb
RBS playing the innocent party again, blaming 'rogue' employees? Again claims made by RBS that are inconceivable & actually false given RBS control function obligations... @sambrodbeck @Eris_FX @TransparencyTF @True_and_FairUK @APPGbanking @appgonpbandffs telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer…
An older story but one that needs exposing. The bank claims it had no knowledge that an extra 0.06% had been added to the price/spread on FX payments between 2010-2014. Nonsense. The price/spread would've been signed off by senior managers and subject to all manner of oversight
Indeed, EVERY FX deal ticket, no matter how small will feature the amount of 'mark up' taken. It was a key performance metric of employees, departments and senior managers running those departments. Let's be clear, even a discrepancy of 0.06% would have been noticeable.....
Read 9 tweets
4 Feb
If a Canary Wharf site will yield £300mio profit upon completion, can't be developed without strips of land owned by a separate company, how much are these strips of land worth? @TransparencyTF @MoonBeever @APPGbanking @AWhistleblowing @GrantThorntonUK @cwd_legal @True_and_FairUK
Grant Thornton partner Kevin Hellard, represented by @MoonBeever acting as 'independent' Trustee in bankruptcy for the owner of this company & formerly owner of the Canary Wharf site, has sold the 50% stake in these strips of land owned by the bankrupt individual for £300,000...
Call me old fashioned, but if nobody can enjoy the £300mio or any profit that would be achieved upon completion of this development, then the strips of land are worth a minimum of £50mio. Pay £50mio and enjoy a net £250mio profit. Don't acquire the strips of land, make £0 profit.
Read 25 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!