Bank of Scotland fined ?45.5m over fraud failure. They are outside links and certainly will start in a brand new screen
Share this with
They are outside links and can start in a brand new screen
They are external links and can open in a brand new window
Close share panel
Bank of Scotland happens to be fined ?45.5m for failing continually to alert authorities to very very very early indications of the fraudulence which finished with all the jailing of six people.
The relates that are fine task by Lynden Scourfield, the pinnacle for the bank’s Impaired Assets group in 2007.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated the lender knew he’d been lending that is sanctioning their authority, but neglected to work correctly.
In February 2017, Scourfield ended up being sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Five other people had been additionally jailed because of their components within the fraudulence, for which funds had been spent and diverted on luxury breaks and prostitutes.
Bank of Scotland ended up being element of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), which became an element of the Lloyds Banking Group during 2009.
The FCA stated that, despite knowing Scourfield’s tasks – which were held during the bank’s browsing branch – complete information wasn’t provided to regulators until July 2009.
“Additionally there is no proof anyone realised, and even seriously considered, the results of maybe not informing the authorities, including just just just how that may wait scrutiny that is proper of misconduct and prejudice the passions of justice, ” the FCA stated in a declaration.
“there clearly was inadequate challenge, scrutiny or inquiry throughout the organization and all the way through, ” it stated.
The police investigation unearthed that the six people siphoned down funds and invested the gains on prostitutes, luxury vacations and a selection of costly things.
In the right time 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 fifteen years; Michael Bancroft had been jailed for a decade; Mark Dobson, another former HBOS supervisor, ended up being sentenced to four. 5 years.
Alison Mills and John Cartwright got three. 5 12 months sentences for cash laundering.
‘Boys’ jollies’
In return for bribes, Scourfield told clients to make use of a turnaround firm called Quayside Corporate solutions.
Mills, 60, who went Quayside with his wife Alison, bribed Scourfield with costly watches, intercourse events and, the court heard, “boys’ jollies”.
They certainly were provided in return for loans which permitted Mills along with his associates to charge high consultancy charges.
Most of the companies had been perfectly sound along with no need of assistance, but had been told their relationship using their bank could be at risk when they would not consent to utilize Quayside.
HBOS, when Britain’s mortgage lender that is biggest underneath the Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands, had been forced to compose down ?245m related into the conspiracy.
“If BOS had communicated its suspicions into the FSA in might 2007, because it must have done, the misconduct that is criminal have already been identified much early in the day. The delay additionally risked prejudice towards the unlawful research carried out by Thames Valley Police, ” the FCA said.
The regulator additionally banned Scourfield, Dobson, Alison and David Mills from employed in monetary solutions.
Bad Character Proof
Introduction
The admissibility of bad character evidence in unlawful procedures is governed by role 11 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sections 98 -113), part 99 of which abolished the current common legislation guidelines. The qualification that is only the abolition regarding the typical 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 by the calling of proof as to their reputation.
The conditions associated with the 2003 Act additionally usually do not impact section 27(3) for the Theft Act 1968 which makes supply for evidence of accountable knowledge for a fee of managing taken products by evidence of past beliefs for managing or theft.
The Legal Framework
“Bad character” proof is defined in area 98 associated with Act which offers 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 component, aside from proof which –
- Is because of the so-called facts hot ebony girls of this offense with that the defendant is charged, or
- Is proof of misconduct regarding the the investigation of prosecution of this offence”.
“Misconduct’ is defined in part 112 regarding the behave as “the payment of a offence or of other reprehensible behaviour”. What’s with the capacity of constituting reprehensible behavior will be fact specific and it has been held to incorporate;
- Consuming to extra and using drugs that are illegal R v M 2014 EWCA Crim 1457
- Account of the gang that is violent R v Lewis 2014 EWCA Crim 48
‘Criminal proceedings’ are defined in area 112 as ‘criminal proceedings to that your strict guidelines of evidence apply’ and have now been held to incorporate:
- A newton or trial hearing – R v Bradley 2005 EWCA Crim 20
- A preparatory hearing (section 30 associated with the Criminal Procedure and Investigation 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, for instance, the telling of is based on a job interview or the intimidation of witnesses (where maybe perhaps not the main topic of a split cost).
It really is of important value to recognize exactly just what proof “has to do” with the so-called facts of a offence because it will not be subject to the statutory regime of gateways and safeguards provided by the Act if it does relate to the alleged facts.