At least the FCA-Farce, Cover-up, Arseholes are consistent-they whitewashed RBS’s GRG and now they’ve let their Lloyds chums off the hook.
BUT THE REAL CRIME CRUNCH IS COMING VERY SOON….Lloyds Bank are now the subject of more police investigations than any other UK company in history. The SFO, The NCA, Police Scotland and multiple English & Welsh police forces are crawling all over Lloyds senior management. WE PREDICT ARRESTS VERY SOON.
Bank of Scotland fined £45m over failure to report fraud suspicions Financial watchdog hits lender with penalty over scandal at its Reading branch.
Bank of Scotland has been fined £45.5m by the UK’s financial watchdog over its failure to report suspicions of fraud at its Reading branch dating back to 2007.
The Financial Conduct Authority handed down the penalty on Friday saying that there had been “insufficient challenge, scrutiny or inquiry across the organisation” after the bank had identified suspicious conduct at its Reading-based Impaired Asset Team.
The bank became aware in early 2007 that Lynden Scourfield, director of the Reading branch, had been sanctioning limits and additional lending facilities beyond the scope of his authority undetected for at least three years, the FCA said. Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) is now owned by Lloyds Banking Group.
But it “failed properly to understand and appreciate the significance of the information that it had identified” over the following two years, “despite clear warning signs that fraud might have occurred”, the regulator added.
It ultimately disclosed the matter in full to the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor in July 2009.
“Bank of Scotland failed to alert the regulator and the police about suspicions of fraud at its Reading branch when those suspicions first became apparent,” said Mark Steward, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA.
“BOS’s failures caused delays to the investigations by both the FCA and Thames Valley Police,” Mr Steward said in a statement on Friday. “There is no evidence anyone properly addressed their mind to this matter or its consequences. The result risked substantial prejudice to the interests of justice, delaying scrutiny of the fraud by regulators, the start of criminal proceedings as well as the payment of compensation to customers.”
Mr Scourfield and another BOS employee, Mark Dobson, were among six individuals sentenced in 2017 for their part in the fraud committed through the IAR. The FCA on Friday banned both men from working in financial services, alongside two others.
The FCA said the fine was reduced from £65m after the bank agreed to resolve the matter.
Mark Steward, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said: “Bank of Scotland failed to alert the regulator and the police about suspicions of fraud at its Reading branch when those suspicions first became apparent.
“BOS’s failures caused delays to the investigations by both the FCA and Thames Valley Police.”
Banko owner LLoyds said it “welcomes the comprehensive investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority into Bank of Scotland’s disclosures in the period between 3 May 2007 and 16 January 2009 regarding the Impaired Assets Office for London and the South East, based in Reading.
“The group accepts the findings, has agreed to pay a fine of £45.5m and apologises once again to customers affected by the fraud itself.
“The FCA’s investigation relates to the period prior to the acquisition of BOS by the group.
“While BOS referred to the FCA its suspicions that a fraud may have taken place during the period in question, the FCA has determined that BOS ‘failed to be open and cooperative…and failed to disclose information appropriately’ about those suspicions.
“The FCA has judged these failures were ‘not intentional’, but the authority found the breach involved repeat instances where Bank of Scotland ‘failed to properly understand and appreciate the significance of the information it had identified’.
“The FCA acknowledges that the ‘weight of evidence that ultimately resulted in the convictions would not (and could not) have been available to BOS at the time’, although the suspicions accompanying BOS’s conclusion that it did not have concrete evidence of fraud could have been more clearly communicated.”