An open letter to David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, from Mrs N Turner
Dear Mr Cameron,
I and many other people were stunned by the quotes from Mr Andrew Bailey, the chief executive-designate of the Prudential Regulation Authority, which were reported in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (December 14th, 2012).
Mr Bailey seems to have confirmed that, irrespective of their criminal actions, banks are not only “too big to fail”; they are also “too big to prosecute”. In an interview with the Telegraph, Mr Bailey said that prosecuting banks and by implication their executive and non-executive directors,
I am writing to ask you, as Prime Minister, for some clarification.
Does your government endorse the notion that banks and bankers should be given a licence to commit criminal acts without any fear of prosecution? Is this now official government policy? Are the British public now being asked to accept that, despite incontrovertible evidence of multiple criminal acts by banks, including money-laundering (and laundering drug money), Libor rigging, multiple frauds and Ponzi schemes, bankers are considered to be immune from prosecution? And if so, can I ask on what grounds your government, or indeed the government of any democratic country, can justify such a policy?
Since this article appeared, I have spoken to several well-informed people who are so outraged by this proposition that they cannot believe Mr Bailey made this statement — the ramifications are so immense and so terrifying to the democratic process.
In his position as chief executive designate of the Prudential Regulation Authority, Mr Bailey has a duty to adhere to the FSA Principles, FSMA 2000 and, of course, the United Kingdom law. Yet it seems this legislation can be overturned without due process, without any regard to the consequences and without any regard to the fact that the regulator — if it fails in its duty to enforce FSMA or to report criminal acts to the relevant authorities — could become an accessory to the crimes it is failing to report.
There is no doubt the people of this country, having been collectively ‘mugged’ by its major financial institutions in recent years, feel completely let down by successive governments given that the governments have:-
Mr Bailey’s statement calls all that into question. He would appear to be suggesting what a few of us have long suspected – that there is, in fact, one law for the many and another one for the few. I am afraid, Mr Cameron, that such a scenario cannot possibly work in a democracy. I have spent over five years investigating criminal activity in a major United Kingdom bank and, in April 2012, my husband and I became so concerned about the perceived ability of banks to manipulate the government and judicial processes that we wrote to the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer. In our letter we said:
I would be grateful to receive confirmation of your government’s official position on Mr Bailey’s statement.
Yours sincerely
Mrs N Turner
Source
Dear Mr Cameron,
I and many other people were stunned by the quotes from Mr Andrew Bailey, the chief executive-designate of the Prudential Regulation Authority, which were reported in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (December 14th, 2012).Mr Bailey seems to have confirmed that, irrespective of their criminal actions, banks are not only “too big to fail”; they are also “too big to prosecute”. In an interview with the Telegraph, Mr Bailey said that prosecuting banks and by implication their executive and non-executive directors,
“would be a
very destabilising issue. It’s another version of too important to
fail. Because of the confidence issue with banks, a major criminal
indictment, which we haven’t seen and I’m not saying we are going to
see… this is not an ordinary criminal indictment.”
Mr Cameron, unless I am completely mistaken, Mr Bailey seems to be
telling us that banks, and therefore bankers, are now officially
considered to be above the law in this country and that, in the
interests of confidence in the banking industry (which is already at
rock bottom among the British public, and therefore can hardly sink any
lower), they cannot be prosecuted.I am writing to ask you, as Prime Minister, for some clarification.
Does your government endorse the notion that banks and bankers should be given a licence to commit criminal acts without any fear of prosecution? Is this now official government policy? Are the British public now being asked to accept that, despite incontrovertible evidence of multiple criminal acts by banks, including money-laundering (and laundering drug money), Libor rigging, multiple frauds and Ponzi schemes, bankers are considered to be immune from prosecution? And if so, can I ask on what grounds your government, or indeed the government of any democratic country, can justify such a policy?
Since this article appeared, I have spoken to several well-informed people who are so outraged by this proposition that they cannot believe Mr Bailey made this statement — the ramifications are so immense and so terrifying to the democratic process.
In his position as chief executive designate of the Prudential Regulation Authority, Mr Bailey has a duty to adhere to the FSA Principles, FSMA 2000 and, of course, the United Kingdom law. Yet it seems this legislation can be overturned without due process, without any regard to the consequences and without any regard to the fact that the regulator — if it fails in its duty to enforce FSMA or to report criminal acts to the relevant authorities — could become an accessory to the crimes it is failing to report.
There is no doubt the people of this country, having been collectively ‘mugged’ by its major financial institutions in recent years, feel completely let down by successive governments given that the governments have:-
- Allowed the banks to fail abysmally thanks to the adoption of ’light touch regulation’ from about 2002;
- Bailed out failed financial institutions without any enforceable conditions at a cost of scores of billions of pounds;
- Failed to bring any banker to account despite transparent misdeeds;
- Permitted bankers to continue to demand and get millions of pounds in rewards for failure while the rest of the country endures ever greater austerity measures;
- Failed via the regulators to stem the increasing rise of institutional fraud against investors and the general public.
Mr Bailey’s statement calls all that into question. He would appear to be suggesting what a few of us have long suspected – that there is, in fact, one law for the many and another one for the few. I am afraid, Mr Cameron, that such a scenario cannot possibly work in a democracy. I have spent over five years investigating criminal activity in a major United Kingdom bank and, in April 2012, my husband and I became so concerned about the perceived ability of banks to manipulate the government and judicial processes that we wrote to the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer. In our letter we said:
“….People
will have to question whether the Law can fulfil its primary function to
protect the public – or whether it has simply become a private members
club?”
If justice is indeed now a ‘private members club’, then it is to up
to you, Mr Cameron, to explain this to the British public. And, as I am
sure you are aware, there is a real danger that the country will descend
into lawlessness if the law is unevenly applied and enforced. If you
really intend proceeding down the path seemingly advocated by Mr
Bailey, then you risk going down in history as the Prime Minister who
did more than any other to undermine the legitimacy of the British
state.I would be grateful to receive confirmation of your government’s official position on Mr Bailey’s statement.
Yours sincerely
Mrs N Turner
Source