Bank of Scotland fined ?45.5m over fraud failure. They are outside links and certainly will start in a window that is new
Share this with
They are outside links and certainly will start in a brand new screen
They are outside links and can start in a window that is new
Close share panel
Bank of Scotland happens to be fined ?45.5m for neglecting to alert authorities to very early indications of the fraudulence which finished because of the jailing of six individuals.
The fine pertains to activity by Lynden Scourfield, the top for the bank’s Impaired Assets group in 2007.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated the lender knew he previously been lending that is sanctioning their authority, but neglected to work precisely.
In February 2017, Scourfield ended up being sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Five other people had been also jailed due to their components when you look at the fraudulence, for which funds had been spent and diverted on luxury breaks and prostitutes.
Bank of Scotland ended up being then element of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), which became an element of the Lloyds Banking Group in ’09.
The FCA stated that, despite being conscious of Scourfield’s tasks – which happened during the bank’s viewing branch – full information had not been supplied to regulators until July 2009.
“There is no proof anyone realised, and on occasion even seriously considered, the results of maybe perhaps not informing the authorities, including just how that may postpone scrutiny that is proper of misconduct and prejudice the passions of justice, ” the FCA stated in a declaration.
“there clearly was challenge that is insufficient scrutiny or inquiry throughout the organization and from top to bottom, ” it stated.
The police investigation discovered that the six individuals siphoned down funds and invested the gains on prostitutes, luxury vacations and a selection of high priced products.
During the right period of their sentencing in 2017, Judge Martin Beddoe said Scourfield “sold their heart” in return for “sex”, “bling” and “for swag”.
Consultant David Mills ended up being jailed for 15 years; Michael Bancroft ended up being jailed for ten years; Mark Dobson, another HBOS that is former manager ended up being sentenced to four. 5 years.
Alison Mills and John Cartwright received three. 5 12 months sentences for the money laundering.
In return for bribes, Scourfield told clients to utilize a turnaround company called Quayside Corporate solutions.
Mills, 60, whom went Quayside with his wife Alison, bribed Scourfield with high priced watches, intercourse events and, the court heard, “boys’ jollies”.
They certainly were offered in exchange for loans which permitted Mills along with his associates to charge high consultancy charges.
Lots of the companies were completely sound together with no need of assistance, but had been told their relationship due to their bank could be at risk when they failed to consent to make use of Quayside.
HBOS, as soon as Britain’s biggest mortgage company beneath the Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands, ended up being forced to compose down ?245m related towards the conspiracy.
“If BOS had communicated its suspicions towards the FSA in might 2007, since it need to have done, the misconduct that is criminal were identified much previously. The wait additionally risked prejudice towards the unlawful research carried out by Thames Valley Police, ” the FCA stated.
The regulator additionally banned Scourfield, Dobson, Alison and David Mills from employed in monetary solutions.
Bad Character Proof
The admissibility of bad character proof in unlawful proceedings is governed by role 11 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (parts 98 -113), part 99 of which abolished the present law that is common. The qualification that is only the abolition regarding the common legislation guidelines is with in section 99(2) which, when it comes to purposes of bad character proof, permits evidence of a person’s bad character because of the calling of evidence as to their reputation.
The conditions associated with 2003 Act additionally usually do not impact section 27(3) for the Theft Act 1968 which makes supply for evidence of bad knowledge on a fee of managing stolen products by evidence of past beliefs for managing or theft.
The Legal Framework
“Bad character” proof is defined in part 98 associated with the Act which gives that:
“References in this Chapter to proof of a person’s ‘bad character’ are to proof of, or of the disposition towards, misconduct on their part, apart from proof which –
- Is because of the so-called facts of this offense with that your defendant is charged, or
- Is proof of misconduct regarding the the research of prosecution of this offence”.
“Misconduct’ is defined in area 112 regarding the behave as “the payment of an offense or of other reprehensible behaviour”. What’s effective at constituting behaviour that is reprehensible be fact specific and contains been held to add;
- Drinking to extra and using illegal medications – R v M 2014 EWCA Crim 1457
- Account of a violent gang – R v Lewis 2014 EWCA Crim 48
‘Criminal proceedings’ are defined in part 112 as ‘criminal procedures to that your strict guidelines of evidence apply’ while having been held to incorporate:
- A newton or trial hearing – R v Bradley 2005 EWCA Crim 20
- A preparatory hearing (part 30 regarding the Criminal Procedure and research Act 1996) – R v H 2006 1 Cr App R 4
- A hearing pursuant to section 4A associated with the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 – finding of fact hearing further up to a choosing of unfit to plead – R v Chal 2007 EWCA Crim 2647
Proof dropping with part 98(b) would encompass proof concerning, as an example, the telling of is based on a job interview or the intimidation of witnesses (where perhaps not the topic of a split cost).
It really is of important value to determine exactly just what proof “has to do” with the so-called facts of an offense because if it will relate with the so-called facts, it won’t be susceptible to the statutory regime of gateways and safeguards given by the Act.