HKMA actions
南華早報Sanctions loom in Lehman investigation
The Monetary Authority is one step closer to sanctioning those guilty of misconduct in 48 cases that involved the sale of Lehman Brothers-linked investment products.
It had concluded its investigation into the 48 complaints and was considering disciplinary action, the authority said yesterday. But it would decide on what action to take only after it had heard from those against whom the complaints were lodged.
"A number of cases are at a very advanced stage of the enforcement process. Before making a final determination in these cases, we have to go through due process to ensure fairness, including giving the subjects of investigation an opportunity to be heard," it said.
If found guilty, an executive officer of a financial institution could be withdrawn or suspended from office, and a financial practitioner's registration could be removed or suspended under the Banking Ordinance, an authority spokesman said.
"A number of cases are at a very advanced stage of the enforcement process. Before making a final determination in these cases, we have to go through due process to ensure fairness, including giving the subjects of investigation an opportunity to be heard," it said.
If found guilty, an executive officer of a financial institution could be withdrawn or suspended from office, and a financial practitioner's registration could be removed or suspended under the Banking Ordinance, an authority spokesman said.
An institution could have its registration revoked or suspended by the Securities and Futures Commission, be subject to a reprimand, a fine or a prohibition order. Employees of the firm who were involved could also be similarly sanctioned.
Some 48,000 Hongkongers lost most of the HK$20 billion they invested in credit-linked derivatives, such as minibonds, issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers when the US investment bank collapsed in September. Many of them have accused financial institutions that sold them the products of misconduct.By Thursday, the authority had received a total of 20,913 such complaints.
Hours before the announcement the authority's chief executive, Joseph Yam Chi-kwong, told a Legislative Council hearing that mis-selling was inevitable because of the variable quality of bank employees.
Responding to criticism by financial services legislator Chim Pui-chung that the authority had not fulfilled its regulatory duties, Mr Yam said: "It is like crime ... always exists in the society. Are law enforcement departments responsible for that?"
Responding to criticism by financial services legislator Chim Pui-chung that the authority had not fulfilled its regulatory duties, Mr Yam said: "It is like crime ... always exists in the society. Are law enforcement departments responsible for that?"
The authority recently hired 40 more employees to handle complaints of mis-selling, he said, and would continue its recruitment to raise the current number of 243 officers to 300. Peter Chan Kwong-yue, chairman of the Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims in Hong Kong, welcomed the possible sanctions in the 48 cases. Mr Chan also said the alliance was arranging a meeting with the Bank of China (Hong Kong) to discuss compensation. In yet another protest, dozens of investors stormed the Citibank headquarters in Central in the afternoon. They were removed by police in the evening.
09 May 2009
09 May 2009
4 則留言:
涂謹申踢爆 金管局遲鈍
風險通告遲發九個月
2009年05月09日
【本報訊】金管局總裁任志剛昨日在立法會聆訊上多番以證監會作擋箭牌，指過去由於證監會未提出要求，故未有早於 08年初要求銀行提高雷曼產品風險時，一併要求所有銀行均應向客戶持續披露產品風險，但雷曼小組成員涂謹申踢爆，金管局在雷曼爆煲後，即在證監會未提要求下，自行向銀行發出通告，指銀行向客戶持續披露相關產品風險屬「良好做法」，認為任提出的理據難以成立，力斥金管局的通告「出遲咗九個月」。
涂謹申指出， 07年 5月證監會網頁的常問問題（ FAQ）一欄中，已要求投資顧問就投資產品的性質、特性及風險，進行持續的產品盡職審查。
以證監會作擋箭牌
對任志剛昨多番以證監會未提出要求，故未有在雷曼爆煲前要求所有銀行向客戶持續披露產品風險，涂即指出，雷曼爆煲後，金管局在證監會未作要求下，已自行向銀行發通告，指銀行向客戶持續披露產品風險屬良好做法。任志剛則指， 08年初已要求私人銀行向客戶持續披露產品風險，但未向進行一次過交易的銷售銀行作同樣要求。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/te ... amp;art_id=12734922
That confirm that in dicuss.com.hk that somebodies said that HKMA only warn the investment bank about CDOs and these should be high risk products while all public banking that sold Minibonds were not required to warn their coustomers. I pointed out these to complaint to OMD of HKMA cover up of HK bank frauds last years and while OMD did not investigate HKMA frauds, I later sent these complaints to Legco and they are now looking into these points. Shanghai Commercial Bank did informed me that they wanted to compete with private banking in 2004 to serve their customers and these should break the rules of HKMA in public banking licences for now HKMA implies that public banking should not do the job of private banking. So SCB in facts is committing crimes of frauds and HK police should investigate about these crimes of HK public banks.
jeff 的分柝絶對精明,可惜系現在根本金管同銀行夾好哂!有錢既唔理你,有權既唔理你,奈若他何?!
hanhoco@yahoo.com 寫道﹕
日期: 2009 5 14 星期四 下午 7:08
寄件人﹕ jean_jl@yahoo.com
收件人 hanhoco@yahoo.com
傳送日期﹕ 2009 年 5月 14 日 星期四 下午 7:00:42
主題： Re: Re： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
that's the smart trick by HKMA.
by pre-defined 'mis-selling', they have to go through all the 20000 cases one by one;
But if they have to investigate the ' misrepresentation of true nature and omission of material risk', they will have to check banks staff according to Code of Conduct. This approach will be more effective, and better efficient with the same 20 people. That's how SFC did with SUng Hung Kai Financial. But it would hurt banks. And HKMA wanted to protect banks.
HKMA ignored our complain and going through investigations with their pre-defined logic. Their approach not only hurt us, their approach is also wasting public's money on going through 20,000 cases one by one. all for the purpose of protecting banks.
金管局一開始就把跟迷債相關的投訴定性為“不良銷售”mis-selling.
既然是“不良銷售”，就只需要問些：如何買入迷你債卷的情形了。於是，金管局就精心制定了問話題目，包括：
［ 年齡，職業，收入，甚麼情形下買入迷你債卷的（例如：是否在被銀行推介之後買入的），用來買迷債的款項之前是否存的定期，］等。
卻從不主動問投訴人：要投訴的因由是甚麼。等於是假定所有的人都是投訴銀行不良銷售。然後用預設的問題把投訴人給套進去。“高招”啊。
金管局有意繞開了關於迷債的誤導的題目。因為如果是誤導，就要查銀行職員有沒有按照證監會的”操守准則“做，那麼，跟金管局以上的問話的相關性就非常之小了。對於Misrepresentation of True Nature and Omission of Material Risks. 的投訴 是只有查”操守准則”了。這就容易查出系統性錯誤來。這也是為甚麼證監會可以很快地查出並譴責新鴻基金融和凱基的原因。
金管局的迷債調查主持人真是從一開始就“高瞻遠矚”啊。 對金管局的伎倆和保護銀行的良苦用心終於是透徹理解了。
現在，該考慮如何曏公眾揭穿金管局的陰謀！
i am going to write to others to summarize our email.
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, hanhoco@yahoo.com wrote:
From: hanhoco@yahoo.com
Subject: Re： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
To: jean_jl@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 6:46 AM
Hi,
What you said is true. They only following the mis-selling procedures and nothing else, and since I read about these questions before in discuss.com.hk in Sept. as those answered the question knew what HKMA was asking and some lawyers that helped in the discussion board about mis-selling , so I answer with all the right answer for bank frauds. And then you had to sent the new informations as Legco sessions went on mis-selling to add more details on banks that did not follow the rules of HKMA. That all HKMA cares. I guess HKMA only used around 20 people calling, 20 people checking, and 20 people analysis the datas to delay all the complaints procedures. Our letter to Donald Tsang I think will also help us a bit.
---------------------------------
寄件人﹕ jean_jl@yahoo.com
收件人 hanhoco@yahoo.com
傳送日期﹕ 2009 年 5月 14 日 星期四 下午 5:55:49
主題： Re: 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
Now it finally became clear to me.
SFC is at least going through items following its Code of Conduct.
HKMA is avoiding the true issue of the minibond: the Misrepresentation and Omission of Risk . (let alone the Fraudulent, Scam nature of the minibond).
By focusing on mis-selling, they do not check if banks staff are following the SFC Code of Conduct which requires staff
- know your clients;
- know the true nature of products;
- explain the true nature and risk of the products to clients,
- make adequate disclosure of material information of the product
- ......
It seems to me, that unless a client bought the minibond without proper signature or without matching risk-profiling, HKMA is not going to check into the staff's behavior according to Code of Conduct.
HKMA is focusing on mis-selling behavior, not systematic mistake.
Therefore, from the phone call from HKMA to victims, we can see the HKMA pattern:
- pre-defined mis-selling;
- prepare a question with person's age, income, if money was in time deposit, was the person talked into buy the minibond by the staff (on the spot or over a few days time), was minibond recommended by staff.
The HKMA Tactics can be verified from my memory on the HKMA phone call to me in Nov.2008).
=> According to HKMA's logic, If you/a person decided to buy the minibond without being talked into it, if your profile matched to the minibond's risk profile set by the bank, if bank staff only explained to you 'credit-linked to 7 reference entity'. It probably would not be mis-selling case.
HKMA seems trying to write-off the misrepresentation & due-diligence at bank's side (e.g. rating minibond at Medium Risk).
We need to and must expose HKMA's dirty trick/tactics.
To do this, we need to recall the phone conversation between HKMA personal and us.
Do you remember exactly what questions the HKMA person asked you? It'll be great if you can write it down when you still remember.
Here is mine (according to my memory which is fading ).
HKMA来电的女士对我的了解只是：知道我的姓名，联络电话。根本就没有看过我的投诉电邮，也没有我的投诉电邮。
对我的问话主要限于以下范围：
买入迷债的银行，银行职员姓名，我的年龄，买入迷债是的年薪，职业，现在（即：调查电话）的年薪，买入迷债的钱之前是否是做的定期，等等。
我觉得她是完全按照一个事先预备好的问题在问我，而并不关心我的投诉到底是什么。我们的对话从头到尾，她都没有问过我究竟是为什么而投诉，理由是什么。
我打断她的问话，告诉她： 我投诉的是 Fraud. 你这个事先准备的问话项目根本就不能反映我的投诉。我投诉的对象是：永亨银行和金管局。 可是，你对我投诉的具体原因确实根本不问，连我的投诉电邮都没有。
当时我的感觉是，金管局的电话询问，只是按照金管局自己预先设定好的问题来提问，并不关心投诉人的原因理由，如果投诉人不主动的话，就完全是［金管局的人问＋投诉人被动的答 ］的方式。
--- On Thu, 5/14/09, hanhoco@yahoo.com wrote:
From: hanhoco@yahoo.com
Subject: Re： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
To: jean_jl@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:57 AM
Hi,
I had three to four calls last Oct, Nov.08. I sent all HKMA points to police as complaint to Shanghai Commercial Bank in my police report :
http://minibondsoctaveconstellation.blogspot.com/2009/02/complaint-to-police.html
---------------------------------
寄件人﹕ jean_jl@yahoo.com
收件人 hanhoco@yahoo.com
傳送日期﹕ 2009 年 5月 14 日 星期四 下午 2:06:23
主題： Re: 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
dear
i totally agree with what you wrote ;-)
The reason i took them out of the letter was because these arguments may distract readers' attention about the key-subject the letter intended to raise.
I am thinking, maybe we can write one letter/comment about the way HKMA conducts the investigation on minibond complaints ....
reading what you wrote, and reading people's complaints on HKMA's harrasment, made me remember the telephone call from HKMA to me in last november.
did you receive any phone call from HKMA regarding your complaint?
if you did, do you mind describing to me ? thanks
cheers
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, jeff wang hanhoco@yahoo.com wrote:
From: hanhoco@yahoo.com
Subject: Re： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
To: jean_jl@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 9:54 PM
Hi ,
Thanks, there is a few notes to explain to you, pls see belows:
寄件人﹕jean_jl@yahoo.com
收件人 hanhoco@yahoo.com
傳送日期﹕ 2009 年 5月 14 日 星期四 上午 12:16:13
主題： Re: 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
Hi
May I make some comment on your email?
you mentioned that "Most bankers should knew about true nature of Minibonds. Legco sessions did reveal that HKMA logic of checking were totally useless."
The above statement is true. However, the intention of my email on 有沒有「透徹理解」投資產品 is to demand HKMA to check banks staff's knowledge. the logic is like is:
(a) check if they 有沒有「透徹理解」投資產品
(b) if no -> bust;
(c) if yes -> did they explain to the clients.
Therefore, making a big statement like Most bankers should knew about true nature of Minibonds. Legco sessions did reveal that HKMA logic of checking were totally useless." is NOT helping to achieve the goal. I think, we need to be careful about when to say what. It all depends on what /when we are asking/demanding. It all depends on the purpose of our statement.
Your intention was to show banks hiding the true from us.
But HKMA may say: we know that banks know the true nature. That's why we check 'know your clients' and skipped the part about 'banks staff should know the product'.
The statement "Most bankers should knew about true nature of Minibonds. Legco sessions did reveal that HKMA logic of checking were totally useless."" can be an excellent tool if we write to HKMA/SFC to complain about banks hiding the true nature and risk of the minibond.
I hope it makes sense to you.
We should arrange our argument and evidence carefully, to fit to the purpose of each subject of each letter. We should be very very careful about the things to say. We should not put all the evidence we know into 1 letter. We put selected arguments for each letter, to fit to the purpose of that letter.
After you write the letter, please imagine how you would reply (if you were HKMA). then, you'll catch the loose ends. Take out the loose end. Take out the things that does not offer exact information. It will only make the letter look more powerful, and better presented.
Again, 'more' may not be better than 'less'. sometimes, 'less' is better than 'more'.
不要畫蛇添足。 Because if i re-write your email below, i would short a few things. Please check my comments in your original email (start with JL:). IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), quite a few should be taken out. They defeated the purpose of the letter, they weakened the focus of the letter. my 2 cents only. again, please read the email below.
my 2 cents. hope you don't mind. my intention is for us to have a focused & powerful fight.
cheers
--- On Wed, 5/13/09, hanhoco@yahoo.com wrote:
From: hanhoco@yahoo.com
Subject: Re： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
To: jean_jl@yahoo.com, bankcomplaints@hkma.gov.hk, info@fstb.gov.hk, slchan@legco.gov.hk, sc_hs01_08@legco.gov.hk
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 11:27 AM
Hi,
Do you think we can add our name to this letter and modified it a bit to hand it to Donald Tsang to impreach Joseph Yam for his role in cover up of HK bank frauds.
thanks
----------------------------------
寄件人﹕ hanhoco@yahoo.com
Ref: HKMA R057
---------------------------------
寄件人﹕ jean_jl@yahoo.com
傳送日期﹕ 2009 年 5月 13 日 星期三 下午 3:51:21
主題： 金管局的黑箱調查是對2萬多投訴人的不公平. 請金管局公布其處理投訴的基本原則
金管局從去年雷曼破產之後，收到超過2萬多關於迷你債卷的投訴。金管局發布了一個調查報告，將調查進展結果分為以下幾個類別：
［ "初步評核" ："錶面證據不足"："收集更多資料": "立案調查"］
My case is ："收集更多資料", so I had sent more informations to HKMA, SFC, Legco about Shanghai Commercial Bank and Bank of China frauds. And HKMA, HK police (Commercial section only with U. grad. police) and Consumer council should group together to locate more banks frauds from banks such as in my case: Shanghai commercial Bank and Bank of China.
JL: if you are not mentioning the exact information here, I do not see any need to have the above paragraph here.
* I had sent a few complaint letter about bank to HKMA last months to Legco members with my HKMA ref no. R057 , so I think they can check these out.
1。 對於2萬多人的關於同一個產品（迷你債卷）的投訴，出於對公眾的公平合理的角度，金管局為甚麼不可以公布其處理投訴的基本原則？
HKMA did not understand these minibonds in details before that why they did not have their rules for investigation published.
JL: i don't think we need to explain on behalf of HKMA. We just make one request. and let HKMA speak for themself. Then, we can catch them in their response. The above line can be used in other letter if you want to accusing HKMA ' s lack of knowledge/blind on minibond sort of things. But here, we don't care if HKMA knew or did not know. We only demand HKMA to publish its rules . And we want to make them look bad if they refuse to publish the rules. In my opinion, the above line is defecting the focus of the letter
* I also sent complaint letter to Legco about HKMA handling of Minibonds in Sept. 08 before you started looking into these matters and that HKMA never answered the charges to legco yet, and this letter did charge HKMA lack of actions before. In fact, HKMA rules should be set up in between Oct or Dec. 08 for the visit of Lehman Victims group to HKMA around Jan, Feb. 09.
這些基本原則，是否跟迷你債卷的抵押品一樣，只可隱藏不提，見不得光？
DPHK and Lehman victims groups had visited and talked with HKMA before during the meetings and issued flow chart to victims related to HKMA investigation procedures.
JL: again, let us NOT speak for HKMA. We ask question. Let HKMA answer us. my 2 cents.
比如：
－ "初步評核" ： 如何劃分的？ 基本標準是甚麼？
－“錶面證據不足”：如何劃分的？ 主要指甚麼情形？常見的例子 (from 處理了的400多宗個案)？
－“收集更多資料“：如何劃分的？ 主要指甚麼情形？常見的例子？ 主要是指個人資產／包括銀行賬戶，房產？
－ ”立案調查“： 如何劃分的？ 基本標準是甚麼？
Some of these informations could be found from D.P. handout during Victims meeting. Final details need to be clarified by Legco in question periods of HKMA, more details of bank frauds should be released openly by Legoc.
2。 對於金管局至今已經處理了的400多宗個案， 主要的共同點 Pattern 是甚麼呢？Legco should published these information from HKMA as 涂謹申 in investment banks/public banks CDO high risk details and Legco 何鍾泰 investigate of HKMA black out reports did involved in cover up of HK bank frauds in Minibonds as read in all international newspaper and local news.
3。 對於2萬多人的關於同一個產品（迷你債卷）的投訴， 通常的 bottom-up 邏輯應該是：
銀行職員「透徹理解」投資產品－》 銀行職員曏客戶不偏不倚地解釋產品的真實特徵及風險＝》瞭解客戶＝》。。。》銷售。
Shanghai Commercial Bank in San Po Kong Branch branch informed me and other people that these Minibonds were holding seven bonds while they all knew these were not, and police should investigate and charge these bankers.
銀行職員有沒有「透徹理解」投資產品，應該是調查迷你債卷投訴的基本問題吧。
－ 金管局的調查逻辑和方式是什么呢？可否请详述？
－ 金管局的調查邏輯和方式是否更有效地調查和找出事件的主要矛盾？Or: just to make the investigation require more people and more time?
Most bankers should knew about true nature of Minibonds. Legco sessions did reveal that HKMA logic of checking were totally useless.
JL: same comment as I mentioned in my email above. we dont' care if they knew or not. In this letter, we wanted to ask HKMA to check each of them (about their knowledge on the product) per each claim. By saying above in this letter, you are helping HKMA to explain why they should skip the process of checking banks knowledge on the product
金管局這麼多高薪專業人才，好像很善於做”揀了芝麻，丟了西瓜“，"只看枝節，不看問題的基本關鍵"，" 只見樹枝 ，不見森林 "（恐怕連樹都沒看見）。
HKMA did not have true professional and graduate school experts to understand true economic system and minibonds structure but only consist of know-nothing university graduates with very high pay checks. Most experts worked for financial institue such as UBS(which had computer modeling analysis of HK economy to advise HK government economic policy around 1997-2005) and Universities such as Chinese Univ. and HK Univ. did disrespect those HKMA low level educated employee. Research papars were found in Legco meeting by Regina Ip and others.
JL: this is politically incorrect. It should not be in this letter. It diverted the email/letter's purpose. HKMA can reply to you and discussing/debating on this and this point only,and ignore all our request presented in the letter. Please do NOT include this one if you are going to send it to Donald Tsang. >
*This is not for Donald Tsang. There were a few similar speechs by Liberal party and Regina Ip in other Legco sessions, I did it for them only.
如果將來事實證明金管局的調查邏輯和方式只是有效地將主要矛盾和次要枝節問題混淆，從而造成需要更長地時間和浪費公款（納稅人的錢）去調查(關於迷你債卷的)投訴。那麼，有沒有‘問責’的人？
HKMA Joseph Yam proved to be responsible for all these defects up to now.
4。 對於金管局至今已經處理了的400多宗個案， 有沒有調查銀行職員是否有違規“操守准則”？
畢竟，迷你債卷的關鍵問題是：客戶是在沒有瞭解到產品的真實特徵和相關風險的情況下買入標榜是“跟7個著名公司信貸掛鈎”的迷債的。
從處理了的400多宗個案, 有多少是反映了銀行職員對於迷你債卷有「透徹理解」的？（操守准則”的“適合性” ）
－ 對於那些經過調查反映了銀行職員對於迷你債卷有「透徹理解」的個例，主要錶現在那些方面呢？
對於迷你債卷有「透徹理解」的銀行職員是如何跟客戶解釋迷債的真實特徵和風險的呢？ 請舉出主要的例子.
－ 或者：金管局沒有調查銀行職員對於迷你債卷是否有「透徹理解」？因為金管局認為銀行職員自然是於迷你債卷有「透徹理解」的？ 請舉出主要的例子.
－ 或者：金管局沒有調查銀行職員對於迷你債卷是否有「透徹理解」？因為金管局認為投訴人只是投訴被誤導產品的真實特徵和相關風險，並沒有直接指明銀行職員對於迷你債卷沒有「透徹理解」， 所以不需要調查？銀行職員對於迷你債卷有「透徹理解」與否與投訴無關？
請舉出主要的例子.
Most bank employee were committing crimes of frauds from police during my meeting with the police and now many of those with HKMA licences to sell derivative products were now missing from banks for HKMA delaying tactics did allow those responsible that lied to bank customers under order of the bankers to be laid off or worked in other positions.
證監會就迷你債券涉及的內部系統及監控進行調查後, 還知道 譴責迷你債卷 co-distributor 新鴻基 SHK Securities Limited 和 凱基證券亞洲有限公司（凱基證券）, 以保障公眾利益.
證監會還知道為小股東的公平利益而跟權勢公司PCCW打官司。
SFC in fact in all their letters did indicate they are still investigating Minibonds frauds and still waiting for HKMA evidence.
在迷你債卷事件上，金管局則為了保護銀行和銀行家的利益竭盡其權利之所能。對於投訴人竭盡使投訴人為難之招。
【金融深淵】任志剛：收過五宗銀行員工激勵機制投訴
(經濟通)2009年5月15日 星期五 11:44
《經濟通通訊社１５日專訊》銀行對前線銷售員工的激勵機制，被指責是導致員工未有清晰披露信貸結構產品風險的原因之一。金管局 總裁任志剛 於立法會 雷曼小組公開研訊時表示，於雷曼兄弟倒閉前，金管局接過三宗涉及激勵機制的投訴，來自匿名銀行職員，指薪酬及激勵計劃僅與銷售額掛勾，但由於其中一宗未能找到投訴人錄取口供，故未能進一步跟進，另外兩宗則仍在處理中。
而於雷曼兄弟倒閉後，金管局再收到兩宗涉及同一間銀行有關激勵計劃的投訴，現正展開調查。議員劉慧卿 質疑為何聽過不少銀行職員投訴花紅高過人工，但金管局至今指，就五宗個案進行過調查，缺乏辦事能力。
此外，任志剛以書面回應議員有關２００３年４月至０８年９月涉及違規銷售結構產品而遭呈處之人士數目，答案只有一名。他解釋，是由於很多調查仍未完成。（ｖｙ）
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090515/9/c74a.html
金管局擬就108宗雷曼個案採取紀律行動
(星島)2009年5月15日 星期五 17:20
金管局 今日公布，現正就108宗雷曼兄弟相關個案考慮採取紀律行動。這些個案已經過金管局的詳細調查。
金管局發言人表示，多宗個案已進入相當後期的法規執行程序。在該局就這些個案作出最後決定前，必須完成有關的適當程序以確保公平，其中包括讓受調查對象有機會作出陳述。
此外，金管局昨日將四宗涉及指稱雷曼兄弟相關投資產品的失當銷售行為的投訴轉介至證監會 ，由其決定是否採取進一步行動。該四宗個案是第二十八批轉介至證監會的雷曼兄弟相關個案，涉及香港一間持牌銀行。金管局由2008年10月17日起共轉介449宗雷曼兄弟相關個案至證監會，當中涉及16間銀行，以採取進一步行動。金管局研究過這些個案後，認為有足夠理據將這些個案轉介至證監會以便向有關銀行進行調查。
金管局在截至2009年5月14日止合共收到20,960宗涉及雷曼兄弟相關產品的投訴，其中20,803宗已完成初步評估。基於上述評估，金管局現正調查5,956宗個案，並就13,727宗個案收集進一步資料。至今共有1,012宗投訴已經完結，原因是經過初步評估後被發現表面證據不足，或在詳細調查後被確定缺乏足夠理據及證據。金管局發言人表示，這些個案的完結，並不會影響證監會現正就有關銀行進行由上而下式的調查。
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/090515/3/c79w.html
發佈留言
訂閱 發佈留言 [Atom]
<< 首頁