Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 05.05.24 Ever so sorry if I have entered this in the wrong part of this website.   My grandfather is in his 70's and retired.  He asked me to help him find a work pension that he was paying into when he was working. From 1967 - 1982 he worked for a Fabric Dying Company, Celanese, Spondon Derby UK. I have already used the GOV.uk Trace Pension Scheme. It listed a few pension companies : Akzo Nobel (CPS) Pension Scheme formerly Courtaulds Pension Scheme.  I do not fully understand how this works but I think this scheme is administer by a company called Willis Tower Watson. We have called this company, got through to the pension department submitted all my grandfather's details (D.O.B. , N.I. no. etc.) but that agent tells that they have no record of my grandfather and ask what is the name of the pension scheme. Here is the problem, his home was burgalled in 2005 and a briefcase which contained his legal documents was stolen. So he does not know who was the Pension Scheme company. I have a this phone number 01332 681 210 for Celanese but it just rings and never gets answered. So I am asking for help if anyone can tell us where we can try next. I am also hoping for a massive long shot that one of them members on this website, worked for or knows someone who worked for British Celanese Spondon Derby and could tell us of any pension company. Thanks for any help.
    • Well I sent them the letter of claim, the only responses so far was a few emails reopening the claims on the parcels where they asked for information such as proof of value (which I get) but other things like photos of the parcels, which I haven't got as I never took photos of them. It's been well over the 14 days since I sent the letter now anyway, so what do you think I should do now?
    • Know it has already been answered, but? Does not explain why JCI has registered a different default date when they get the information from the original creditor, Virgin
    • Since you were stopped at the time there is no requirement for the police give you anything there and then or to send you anything before they have decided how to deal with the offence.  They have three choices: Offer you a course Offer you a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) Prosecute you in court  The only option that has a formal time limit is (3). They must begin court proceedings within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Options (1) and (2) have no time limit but since the only alternative the police have if you decline those offers is (3) they will not usually offer a course beyond three months from the date of the offence and will not usually offer a fixed penalty beyond four months from that date. This is so as to allow time for the driver to accept and comply with their offer and to give them the time to go to option (3) if he declines or ignores it.  Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, the action they take will usually be in accordance with the National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance on speeding enforcement. In a 40mph limit this is as follows Up to 45mph - no action. Between 46mph and 53mph - offer a course Between 54mph and 65mph - offer a fixed penalty Over 65mph - prosecution in court So you can see that 54mph should see you offered a fixed penalty. Three weeks is not overly long for a fixed penalty offer to arrive. As well as that, there has been Easter in that period which will have slowed things down a bit. However, I would suggest that if it gets to about two months from the offence date and you have still heard nohing, I would contact the ticket office for the area where you were stopped to see if anything has been sent to you. Of course this raises the danger that you might be "stirring the hornets' nest". But in all honesty, if the police have decided to take no action, you jogging their memory should not really influence them. The bigger danger, IMHO, is that your fixed penalty offer may have been sent but lost and if you do not respond it will lapse. This will see the police revert to option (3) above. Whilst there is a mechanism in these circumstances  to persuade the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (rather than in accordance with the normal guidelines which will see a harsher penalty), it relies on them believing you when you say you did not received an offer. In any case it is aggravation you could well do without so for the sake of a phone call, I'd enquire if it was me.  I think I've answered all your questions but if I can help further just let me know. Just a tip - if you are offered a fixed penalty be sure to submit your driving licence details as instructed. I've seen lots of instances where a driver has not done this. There will be no reminder and no second chance; your £100 will be refunded and the police will prosecute you through the courts.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HSBC scandal


dj1971
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3359 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I am completely shocked to log into the forum and find that no-one has posted a thread or is discussing events now having been made so public around the HSBC scandal.

 

This is a huge issue which effects us all. So why is no-one talking about it?

 

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we are in the middle of negotiating a huge loan with them and we do not want to rock the boat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I'll start the ball rolling with an overview of what's been happening.

 

In May 2006 Stephen Green was appointed chairman of HSBC.

 

December 2008: Herve Falciani who had been employed at HSBC;s Swiss private bank as an IT expert was arrested by Swiss police and escaped to France with data containing information on 30,000 accounts at the private bank having been released on bail.

 

Herve claims he contacted HMRC informing them that he had information relating to British nationals evading tax. There was no response from HMRC, so Herve claims he called them but again no action was taken.

 

January 2009: Swiss authorities issue an arrest warrant for Herve and he was arrested by French police. Upon seizing his computer and finding the leaked data, French authorities refuse to extradite Herve and proceed to investigate the data themselves.

 

HSBC take the French authorities to court in an attempt to prevent them passing the data to other tax authorities.

 

Early 2010: French finance minister Christiane Legarde (currently head of the IMF) passed on data to tax authorities in a number of EU countries including our very own HMRC.

 

HMRC start analysing the data and of the 6,000 accounts it contained decide that these relate to 3,600 individuals of which 1,100 have been participating in tax evasion. (the il-legal non payment of taxes due)

 

September 2010: Mr Cameron appoints Stephen Green as trade minister and gives him a peerage. Lord Green takes up his post as trade minister in January 2011.

 

September 2011: David Hartnett told the treasury select committee "I think the whole nation probably knows that our department has a disc from the Swiss - from the Geneva branch of a major UK bank, with 6,000 names all ripe for investigation".

 

July 2012: Property developer Michael Shanly pleaded guilty to tax evasion of £430,000 and was ordered by the court to pay a further £469,444 in fines and costs. To date Mr Shanly is the only British national to have been prosecuted from data received in the leaked files.

 

December 2012: HSBC pays £1.2billion in fines after admitting that it had processed drug trafficking proceeds through Mexico and transmitted funds from sanctioned countries including Iran.

 

October 2013: Belgian prosecutors carry out raids on the Antwerp homes of a number of diamond dealers in a tax evasion investigation focusing on HSBC.

 

December 2013: Lord Green steps down as minister of state for trade and investment.

 

June 2014: HSBC sells a big chunk of it's Swiss bank to Liechtenstein LGT.

 

November 2014: France. Belgium & Argentina charge HSBC with aiding tax evasion through it's Swiss business.

 

9th February 2015: BBC program panorama airs it's investigation into the leaked HSBC files and alleged tax evasion.

 

Stoke City director Keith Humphreys threatened legal action after allegations in the panorama program alleged that Mr Humphreys had told his HSBC account manager in Switzerland that his account had not been declared to HMRC.

 

11th February 2015: HMRC CEO Lyn Homer tells the public accounts committee that of the 6,000 accounts on the leaked files it had found these related to 3,600 individuals.

 

Of these 1,100 were identified as having participated in tax evasion, most of whom had settled their accounts under a little known agreement called the Liechtenstein disclosure facility, 500 of which had done so following active persuasion by HMRC. The total collected in unpaid tax and penalties was £135million.

 

Miss Homer also told mp's of the committee that HMRC could find no record of the email alleged to have been sent by Herve Falciani in 2008, before french newspaper Le Monde published a copy of the email.

 

When asked by the committee's chair why there had been only 1 prosecution from the data received Miss Homer said that French authorities had placed strict conditions on how HMRC could use the data. She also told the committee that HMRC had tried to persuade the French authorities to relax the conditions and that they had none done so.

 

This allegation was later refuted by French finance minister Michel Sapin who said "I have not understood the comments made by the British authorities. The data on HSBC was transmitted to them in 2010, in the framework of the bilateral conventions that bind us. Nothing has been said to them since. These conventions do restrict the use of the information to tax purposes."

 

14th February 2015: Lord Stephen Green resigns his position at financial services lobby group TheCityUK.

 

15th February 2015: HSBC CEO Stuart Gulliver takes out a full page ad in some Sunday papers saying "we must show that the societies we serve expect more from us. We therefore offer our sincerest apologies." before going on to criticise "Major UK media" for publishing information from the stolen files.

 

18th February 2015: Officers from the Swiss prosecutors office raid the offices of HSBC's Swiss bank in Geneva and said they were investigating HSBC private bank and persons unknown for aggressive money laundering. The investigation could also be extended to people suspected of committing or participating in money laundering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the purposes of clarification the 1,100 individuals identified by HMRC related to tax evasion (il-legal non payment of tax due) not tax avoidance which has been discussed extensively in the press & media lately.

 

The Liechtenstein disclosure facility I referred to in the second paragraph of 11th February is an agreement set up by then chancellor Alistair Darling and the Liechtenstein government to facilitate the disclosure of financial assets held by British nationals in Liechtenstein. Under the agreement anyone who voluntarily disclosed their financial assets to HMRC including immunity from criminal prosecution in the majority of cases and a fixed penalty of 20-30% rather than the up to 200% of tax owed available to HMRC in cases settled outside the agreement.

 

There are a number of important conditions that must be met for a case to be settled under these more favourable terms including the disclosure must be information that HMRC were not already aware of and must be made voluntarily i.e. without HMRC intervention. Therefore it follows that as HMRC already had the relevant information and the disclosures were not made without HMRC intervention, the Liechtenstein disclosure facility with it's favourable terms of settlement was not applicable to these 1,100 cases that HMRC allowed to be settled in that way.

 

As a result, the £135million collected in unpaid taxes and fines could have been much more and potentially have lead to more criminal prosecutions.

 

Which surely begs the question why did HMRC allow and indeed actively persuade those involved in some of these 1,100 cases to be settled under the more favourable terms and who authorised it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen this

 

http://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/transparency_international_calls_for_criminal_investigation_of_hsbc_by_uk_a

 

Then this

Nicholas Wilson HSBC- Whistle blower on the Big Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then finally this

 

https://www.startjoin.com/prosecuteHSBC

 

All from an Anonymous source as always the internet

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today HSBC are expected to announce an annual profit for 2014 of £13.6billion and from that bonuses for it's top executives of £2.6billion.

 

CEO Stuart Gulliver wrote a "sincere apology" for it's failings in many of the national papers last Sunday, before going on to apparently justify it by saying that was nearly 10 years ago and we have changed.

 

Mr Gulliver who earns a £1.2million annual salary, plus £1.7million in "fixed pay allowance" paid every 3 months in shares, is expected to collect £7.5million from the bonus pot.

 

Although born and raised in Britain, Mr Gulliver is considered non'dom in the UK for tax purposes, meaning he does not pay UK tax on earnings from outside Britain. That combined with his employment contract at HSBC which is with HSBC's Dutch arm, could potentially mean that he pays no tax in UK.

 

Now. That considered, have a read of this:

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/22/swiss-account-secret-of-hsbc-chief-stuart-gulliver-revealed

 

 

and this:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/listen-tories-plot-bankers-dodge-5211052

 

 

Sorry my "insert link" tab does not appear to be working.

 

DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...