HK Gov. cover up of bank frauds
I watched cable TV today on live Legco session, and Yam is still protecting the banks by misrepresentation and omission of the true nature and risk of the so-called Minibond.
1. Yam blame CDO's crisis a once happened in a hundred years to drop in value during 2008. I knew these since 2007, but the banks never told me that the Minibonds I bought contains these CDO that were high risks. So Yam is trying to hide away from his mismanagement of banks and Yam is involved in cover up of these facts.
2. HKMA did not check from bank whether their customers bought the Minibonds from wealth management accounts. Yam said that the public banks are not supposed to check for their customers after they bought the Minibonds. For wealth management accounts, the banks are supposed to look after customers account if their products went from low risk to high risks. The omission of these facts prove that Yam is helping banks to cover up their faults.
3. His under secretary representing HKMA blame the banks to refuse to raise the Minibonds from low risk to high risk. So HKMA is putting all the faults to banks without acknowledge that they were involved to allow banks to sell these false bonds. There were some complaints that banks were selling false bonds, and Yam is covering these faults up saying there are very few complaints about the false bonds.
4. SFC is also trying to cover up the complaint of Minibonds brocedure mislead the customers thinking Minibonds are just bonds for their faults together with HKMA, HK government to let banks to sell minibonds as false bonds.
5. Nobody believed that HK government did not knew about Minibonds in banks, pls see my link in discuss.com.hk http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=9059814&extra=&page=9 #131 because these are a very curious things. I read in all Chinese newspapers and there are so many discussion there, but nobody point out as I do that it ok for Legco members not knowing about Minibonds but not for HK government official in charge of financial matters.
2 則留言:
CHIM PUI-CHUNG
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr08-09/ ... 016-translate-e.pdf
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chief Executive, globally the financial tsunami has happened, and in Hong Kong, just as you said earlier, we have the minibonds issue. In the policy address, you mentioned that a task force chaired by you would be established, and yesterday in front of the media, you even urged the banks to expeditiously make a decision. Chief Executive, you should know that the problem cannot be immediately resolved even if those two things were accomplished. Meanwhile, I strongly support your administrative initiative of establishing the ccountability System for Principal Officials. My question therefore contains three sub-questions. Firstly, what action will you take if it is proved in the future that one of the Principal Officials has to be held responsible for the minibonds issue? I have actually put this question to a secretary of Department before, but I would like you to give a fairer response to all Hong Kong people and the victims.
If it is proved that the case involves criminality, will you instruct other departments to employ tougher means so that the perpetrators would no longer take Hong Kong a teller machine?
(HKMA chief Yam is the Principal Official that knowingly allows banks to pretend Minibonds, a high risk derivative products as a low risk bonds to sell to their customers for profits and to help Lehman, Morgan Stanley and DBS to steal money from HK people and Yam has to be held responsible.)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 16 October 2008
87
Thirdly, which is the most important point, will you consider setting up a special court? We all know that legal poceedings may take as long as three to five years, after which the problem may remain unresolved. This will deal a serious blow to Hong Kong as a financial centre. Three questions have been raised, but they can actually be summarized into one. Now, the floor is yours.
(Observers on the public gallery applauded after Mr CHIM Pui-chung had finished with his question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will people on the public gallery remain silent please.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): We are now busy combating the financial tsunami, Mr CHIM, and I am confident that our Government is a responsible one. And yet, this is not the right moment to punish any official. Nor is this the appropriate time to hold anyone responsible. For the time being, we should all stick to our positions and overcome the difficulties. I think that justice is in the hearts of the people. When the issue dies down, Members will naturally see who has done wrong or what mistakes we have made in this financial quagmire in comparison with other regions. In the face of the crisis, I believe it is more important to pool all our manpower and resources and this is what is expected of us by Hong Kong people.
If criminal acts are disclosed after the investigation, Mr CHIM, I can assure you that I will follow it up seriously. I will definitely do so.
(Varies banks such as Shanghai Commercial Banks, DBS etc. should be charged)
Yesterday, I also mentioned that should a victim found that the case involved civil rather than criminal acts and considered it unfair, whereas the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) also noticed some unfair acts of the institutions concerned, he might turn to the Consumer Council for assistance under a special litigation mechanism. Money will be injected by the SAR Government when this litigation mechanism lacks funds, hence enabling the victims to initiate proceedings. This is the way to tackle it through the civil avenue. As for criminality, follow-up actions would surely be taken.
Regarding the special court proposed by you, the Courts are always full and many Judges are occupied with cases. If the Judges are made to take up this case, how long will the hearing last? I believe the hearing will be excessively long and may even affect other cases. I hope that the case will not
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 16 October 2008
88
be brought before the Court as reputation and goodwill is very important to the intermediaries concerned (including the banks). Should we find anything wrong or flaws are discovered after the HKMA investigation, I am confident that those responsible banking institutions would immediately resort to reconciliation and consider making compensation without bringing the case before the Court, which is considered to be too humiliating and troublesome.
(Shanghai Commercial Bank, Bank of China, DBS and others have already court cases involved, and these banks are already with bad reputations)
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, members of the public should have heard the three answers given by the Chief Executive. The point is we all know that legal proceedings in Hong Kong may probably take as long as three to five years. It is therefore my opinion and wish that the Government could set up a special court to make an ultimate arbitration where no appeal is allowed and is final. The decision certainly rests with the Secretary for Justice.
With the availability of arbitration in Hong Kong, a lot of time can be saved.
We are allowed to resort to this course in case of emergency. It is all up to you.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese): I dare not say if it works in the absence of an appeal channel. What is more, "Uncle CHIM" ― I used to call him in this way ― according to legal advice, arbitration requires the consent of the two parties concerned. In case either party does not agree, the case will be brought before the Court and no one can be forced into arbitration. Should either party refuse to give consent, nothing can be done. Legal proceedings are therefore necessary for some cases. But I do agree with you that if a large number of cases (civil cases in particular) are involved, hence the Court may probably take a very long time to handle them, but if the bank concerned still refuses to reconcile or do something about it when the elderly victims seek help, we will then resort to other courses of action. I will consider all your proposals and discuss with the Chief Justice how these special cases could be dealt with.
09 JAN 2009 政府公布金管局和證監會調查雷曼事件報告部分內容翌日，任志剛聲言雷曼事件主因是金融海嘯而非監管制度有問題。余若薇反駁，指立法會尚未完成調查，任志剛妄下結論。她亦呼籲政府盡快落實上述兩份報告的建議，加強保障消費者。 新聞稿
發佈留言
訂閱 發佈留言 [Atom]
<< 首頁