Like my constituents in Grimsby I'm constantly amazed as the HSBC
horror banking story unfurls to discover how many people at the top were paid
so much to not know what was going on. It's even more amazing to find that they
face no sanction at all beyond the embarrassment of appearing before select
committees to justify the way they've profited by turning a blind eye to what amounts
to criminality.
It's vital, to maintain the credibility of both the banking and
the tax system, that wrong doing should be exposed and punished, and that those
responsible shouldn't profit from it. In the US with its tougher regulation
perps are punished and rough justice works. So in 2012 HSBC was fined $1.9
billion because its "blatant failure to implement proper anti-money
laundering controls facilitated the laundering of at least $881 million in drug
proceeds" and the bank "accepted responsibility for its criminal
conduct and that of its employees"
Here in Britain we're much nicer. Chaps rule and regulate other
chaps while HMRC tries to maintain good relations with the big corporations. So
when yet another HSBC scandal was forced on the reluctant attention of our
regulators with the leaking by Herve Falciani of a list of clients of HSBC's
private bank in Switzerland who'd been using Swiss accounts to evade tax with
the active support of the bank the matter was handed to the revenue not the
courts or the regulators.
In Britain the management assumption must be that pennies come
from heaven...The bank profited from criminality, the directors, on bonuses and
profit related pay, benefitted, yet no director, non-exec director, audit
committee member, or auditor fulfilled even the minor responsibility driven
them under the Corporate Governance Codes to "comply or explain" and
none of them brought matters to public attention. No one at the bank has
suffered any sanctions. Only one tax evader has been indicted and the shake out
of the evaders on the long list has produced less for the revenue than the
smaller list of evaders in France and Spain. As for the man who was chief
executive from 2003 to 2006 then chairman from 2006 to 2010 and therefore in
charge of the whole operation, Lord Green, he hasn't even had to suffer a
tongue lashing from Margaret Hodge the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Instead he was put into the Lords and made a Minister when he retired from the
bank. Saint he may be, but a Trappist one
Tory members of the PAC and the Treasury committee don't want him
to appear, though I'm not sure whether it's because we shouldn't call peers,
priests or ex ministers. The Government clearly doesn't want him grilled. I'd
guess that if he did have the decency to fulfil his responsibilities and
explain his position Lord Green would use the same excuse as those HSBC
executives who have faced up to a select committee grilling, which is to say
"I might have drawn big money and bonuses for being in charge but I
certainly didn't know what was going on. Someone should have told me but no one
did"
There's none so blind as he who will not see may or may not be a
good excuse for evading the responsibilities of directors under the Companies
act of 2006 to discharge their fiduciary duties towards the company. It doesn't
convince me. It's either really a statement that directors were drawing huge
amounts of pay for doing nothing in which case they are being paid under false
pretences, or an admission that the bank was too big to manage and should be
broken up.
Either way it's perfectly possible that HSBC was not a unique
case and that other banks were doing much the same things. We do need to know
but the only way to restore faith in the system now is if Lord Green has the
integrity to explain his role and both he and the others who ran HSBC but
failed so badly to fulfil their responsibilities to customers, shareholders and
the law faced sanctions rather than well upholstered retirements.
No comments:
Post a Comment