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

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

Share this with

They are external links and can start in a new window

They are outside links and certainly will 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 early indications of the fraudulence which finished utilizing the jailing of six individuals.

The relates that are fine task by Lynden Scourfield, the top regarding the bank’s Impaired Assets group in 2007.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) stated the financial institution knew he previously been sanctioning financing beyond their authority, but neglected to act precisely.

In 2017, Scourfield was sentenced to 11 years in jail february.

Five other people had been additionally jailed due to their components within the fraudulence, for which funds had been redirected and invested on luxury holiday breaks and prostitutes.

Bank of Scotland ended up being 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 viewing branch – complete information had not been supplied to regulators until July 2009.

“Additionally there is no evidence anyone realised, and sometimes even seriously considered, the results of maybe perhaps not informing the authorities, including just how that may delay appropriate scrutiny associated with the misconduct and prejudice the passions of justice, ” the FCA stated in a declaration.

“there was clearly inadequate challenge, scrutiny or inquiry over the organization and all the way through, ” it stated.

The police investigation discovered that the six people siphoned off funds and invested the gains on prostitutes, luxury breaks and a selection of high priced things.

During the period of the sentencing in 2017, Judge Martin Beddoe said Scourfield “sold his heart” in return for “sex”, “bling” and “for swag”.

Consultant David Mills ended up being jailed for 15 years; Michael Bancroft ended up being jailed for decade; Mark Dobson, another previous HBOS supervisor, ended up being 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 ran Quayside with his wife Alison, bribed Scourfield with costly watches, intercourse events and, the court heard, “boys’ jollies”.

We were holding provided in return for loans which allowed Mills along with his associates to charge high consultancy costs.

Most of the companies were completely sound along with no need of assistance, but had been told their relationship along with their bank will be at risk should they would not consent to utilize Quayside.

HBOS, when Britain’s mortgage lender that is biggest beneath the Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands, ended up being forced to compose down ?245m related towards the conspiracy.

“If BOS had communicated its suspicions towards the FSA in might 2007, since it need to have done, the misconduct that is criminal have already been identified much earlier in the day. The wait additionally risked prejudice towards 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 economic services.

Bad Character Proof

Introduction

The admissibility of bad character evidence in unlawful procedures is governed by role 11 Criminal Justice Act 2003 (parts 98 -113), part 99 of which abolished the current common legislation guidelines. The qualification that is only the abolition of this typical legislation guidelines is in section 99(2) which, when it comes to purposes of bad character proof, enables evidence of a person’s bad character because of the calling of proof as to their reputation.

The conditions for the 2003 Act additionally usually do not impact section 27(3) associated with the Theft Act 1968 which makes supply for evidence of responsible knowledge for a fee of managing taken items by evidence of past beliefs for managing or theft.

The Legal Framework

“Bad character” proof is defined in part 98 regarding the Act which gives that:

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

  1. Is because of the so-called facts of this offense with that your defendant is charged, or
  2. Is proof of misconduct associated with the investigation of prosecution of the offence”.

“Misconduct’ is defined in part 112 for the work as “the payment of a offense or of other reprehensible behaviour”. What exactly is with the capacity of constituting reprehensible behaviour will be fact specific and contains been held to add;

  • Consuming to excess and using drugs that are illegal R v M 2014 EWCA Crim 1457
  • Account of a gang that is violent R v Lewis 2014 EWCA Crim 48

‘Criminal proceedings’ are defined in section 112 as ‘criminal procedures to that the strict guidelines of evidence apply’ and have now been held to incorporate:

  • A test or newton hearing – R v Bradley 2005 EWCA Crim 20
  • A preparatory hearing (part 30 associated with the Criminal Procedure and research Act 1996) – R v H 2006 1 Cr App R 4
  • A hearing pursuant to section 4A associated with Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 – finding of fact hearing further to a choosing of unfit to plead – R v Chal 2007 EWCA Crim 2647

Proof falling with area 98(b) would encompass evidence associated with, as an example, the telling of is based on an meeting or the intimidation of witnesses (where perhaps maybe perhaps not the main topic of an independent charge).

It really is of essential value to recognize just just what proof “has to do” with the so-called facts of a offense because if it can relate genuinely to the so-called facts, it won’t be susceptible to the statutory regime of gateways and safeguards given by the Act.