Financial Whistle-Blowing Under Siege: Lloyds and the Latest Attack
This first of three brief
posts today looks at a subject we have covered here in Financial Regulation Matters a number of times, and that is the
concept of a financial whistle-blower. The story we have covered most is the
story of Jes Staley, the CEO of Barclays (here
and here),
but although that case resulted in a (relatively) small fine, news recently
suggests that the protections afforded to financial whistle-blowers need to be
strengthened much more, both in light of the recent actions of leading members
of the financial services but also because of the period that we are in –
making sure transgressions in the financial sector are identified and expressed
(either publically or to regulators) is crucial as we move away from the last
financial crisis.
There are a number of
issues affecting Lloyds at the moment, but most stem from their takeover of
HBoS and the fraud that was uncovered within a division in Reading. We have
covered this story a number of times (here),
but the sentiment put forward by Lloyds is that the transgressions all took
place before the takeover, and that they had no knowledge of the purposeful
destruction of many SMEs. It was reported as far back as October 2017 that
Lloyds’ behaviour towards their whistle-blowers was ‘disgraceful’, firstly by
making those whistle-blowers ‘prove
they were victims’, and then in January 2018 it was reported that a
whistle-blower who had formulated a damning report into the scandal in 2013 had
been made
redundant without the necessary compensation. More recently, the Financial Times has reported that Lloyds
tried to ‘silence’
the whistle-blower and that, contrary to the bank’s claims, the Reading Fraud
had been discussed in internal emails within Lloyds as far back as February
2008. The effect of this is that Lloyds has been catapulted into the limelight
over the protections it offers to whistle-blowers, which of course is a vital
component against ‘white-collar crime’.
The Police Commissioner’s
suggestions have been refuted by the Bank, but with investigations continuing
into the scandal there is a likelihood that more revelations will surface
regarding the knowledge Lloyds had which will then impact upon the perception
of actions they have taken since. This is an extremely negative chain of
events, but there is one positive in that the concept of the whistle-blower has
been forced into the limelight at a time when that concept is as vital as ever.
When one considers the cyclical dynamic of the economy, then one can see that
we are potentially moving into a phase whereby ‘amnesia’ sets in and trust is
restored in the very same system that created the last crisis – that phase is
not quite upon us yet, but it is not far. Claims to act in a counter-cyclic
manner in terms of regulation are very sensible and would eliminate the current
rate of a crisis of some sort occurring every ten years (arguably), but the
chances of those claims being recognised and implemented as the calls for ‘growth’,
‘development’, or another buzz word that is consistently used to enable the
financial sector to return to its ways are very slim indeed, unfortunately.
Keywords – Lloyds, HBoS, Banking,
Fraud, Whistle-blower, @finregmatters.
Comments
Post a Comment