Bank of Scotland fined ?45.5m over fraud failure. They are outside links and certainly will open in a window that is new

Share this with

They are outside links and certainly will start in a window that is new

They are external links and can start in a window that is new

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 individuals.

The fine pertains to task by Lynden Scourfield, the top for the bank’s Impaired Assets group in 2007.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated the financial institution knew he previously been lending that is sanctioning their authority, but did not work correctly.

In February 2017, Scourfield had been sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Five other people had been additionally jailed because of their components within the fraudulence, by which funds had been spent and diverted on luxury breaks and prostitutes.

Bank of Scotland had been 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 browsing branch – complete information had not been supplied to regulators until July 2009.

“Additionally there is no proof anyone realised, and on occasion even seriously considered, the results of perhaps perhaps not informing the authorities, including exactly how that may postpone scrutiny that is proper of misconduct http://www.camsloveaholics.com/female/hairy-pussy/ and prejudice the passions of justice, ” the FCA stated in a declaration.

“there is inadequate challenge, scrutiny or inquiry throughout the organization and all the way through, ” it said.

The police investigation unearthed that the six people siphoned down funds and spent the gains on prostitutes, luxury holiday breaks and a selection of costly things.

In the 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 had been jailed for 15 years; Michael Bancroft had been jailed for a decade; Mark Dobson, another previous HBOS supervisor, had been sentenced to four. 5 years.

Alison Mills and John Cartwright received three. 5 sentences for money laundering year.

‘Boys’ jollies’

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 return for loans which permitted Mills and their associates to charge consultancy that is high.

A number of the organizations had been completely sound along with no need of help, but had been told their relationship using their bank could be in danger should they failed to consent to utilize Quayside.

HBOS, when Britain’s biggest mortgage company beneath the Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands, ended up being obligated to compose down ?245m related to your conspiracy.

“If BOS had communicated its suspicions to your FSA in might 2007, since it must have done, the misconduct that is criminal have already been identified much earlier in the day. The delay additionally risked prejudice into the investigation that is criminal 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

Introduction

The admissibility of bad character proof in unlawful procedures is governed by role 11 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (parts 98 -113), area 99 of which abolished the present law that is common. The qualification that is only the abolition associated with typical legislation rules is with in section 99(2) which, for the purposes of bad character proof, permits evidence of a person’s bad character by the calling of proof as to their reputation.

The provisions associated with 2003 Act additionally usually do not impact section 27(3) associated with the Theft Act 1968 which makes supply for evidence of bad 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 part 98 regarding the Act which provides that:

“References in this Chapter to proof a person’s character that is‘bad are to proof of, or of the disposition towards, misconduct on their component, aside from proof which –

  1. Is because of the so-called facts regarding the offense with that the defendant is charged, or
  2. Is proof of misconduct relating to the research of prosecution of the offence”.

“Misconduct’ is defined in part 112 associated with the behave as “the payment of an offense or of other reprehensible behaviour”. What exactly is with the capacity of constituting behaviour that is reprehensible be fact specific and has now been held to incorporate;

  • Consuming to extra and taking drugs that are illegal 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’ and have now been held to add:

  • A newton or trial hearing – R v Bradley 2005 EWCA Crim 20
  • A preparatory hearing (part 30 for 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 falling with area 98(b) would encompass proof associated with, for instance, the telling of is based on a job interview or perhaps the intimidation of witnesses (where perhaps perhaps perhaps not the topic of an independent fee).

It really is of important importance to recognize exactly exactly what proof “has to do” with the so-called facts of a offense 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.