On the back of revelations regarding Danske Bank and its connection to money laundering last year, it was revealed in the news yesterday that Birgitte Bonnesen, the CEO of Swedbank, had been relieved of her duties just minutes into the Bank’s AGM in relation to the organisation’s connection to dirty money. In this post we shall examine these connected cases further and learn more about the anti-money laundering issues facing banking organisations. The incredibly reputable Danske Bank, Denmark’s largest lender, became embroiled in a money laundering scandal last year when it was revealed they had helped launder almost €200 billion in Russian and Baltic money since 2007 . The case of Danske Bank revolves around the purchasing of an Estonian Bank that would become the vessel for money laundering from neighbouring States like Russia and the Baltic States. The leadership of Danske Bank were not only made aware of the issues as early as 2010, but actively promoted the increasing of ‘n

In the first of two short posts today, we will look at the case of the billionaire Sackler Family and their remarkable effect upon American society. The family, who own Purdue Pharma amongst a list of other ventures, have this week seen a massive legal action taken against them by the State of New York who argue that the company is ‘ responsible for the opioid epidemic ’ sweeping through the United States. The attorney-general for New York has called the lawsuit the ‘ nation’s most extensive ’ with respect to the pharmaceutical industry and comes right on the heels of a $270 million suit that was settled in the State of Oklahoma on exactly the same grounds. Whilst the company and the billionaire family who own it did not admit guilt (settling parties rarely do, hence why they settle outside of court) it has potentially opened the trapdoors for litigation. It comes as no surprise then that the company is reportedly considering bankruptcy proceedings in the face of such an onsl

In this second post, we will look at the news that Ernst & Young (E&Y) are facing a massive and highly unusual (for Japan) $9 billion lawsuit for its audit failings that led to investors in Toshiba losing out significantly. As E&Y have already had issues with Toshiba, it is worth examining this current instance to see whether this is a continuation of auditing failings across the globe. As part of one of Japan’s worst accounting scandal s for some time, E&Y were fined $17.4 million in 2015 for ‘failing to spot irregularities’ in its audit of Toshiba’s accounts. The firm were banned from taking on new business contracts in the country for 3 months, and at the end of 2015 the firm’s regional Head resigned . Yet, this week the firm is once again making headlines in Japan for its performance, or lack thereof. The firm is facing a shareholder lawsuit for $9 billion and is accused of being partly responsible for Toshiba’s failure to ‘ disclose losses at Westinghouse ’

In the first of a series of shorter posts today, we will react to the news that Goldman Sachs has been handed a financial penalty by the FCA for misrepresenting a vast number of transactions over the past decade. In the largest fine of its kind ever given out by the regulator, the FCA has fined Goldman’s London Unit £34.4 million for ‘ failing to provide accurate and timely reporting relating to 220.2 million transaction reports between November 2007 and March 2017 ’. Because Goldman agreed to resolve a proportion of the issue – issues relating to the firm’s change management processes and its maintenance of counterparty reference data – the figure of £43.4 million is actually a reduction on what should have been a £49 million fine. The firm is guilty of not complying with the rules of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive , or MiFID, and is the second such action taken against a bank by the FCA in less than a month after UBS was fined £28 million for the same thing. I

In this very short post we will react to the news that broke today regarding the future of the Financial Reporting Council. We have covered the FRC on a number of occasions here in Financial Regulation Matters and the posts have been highly critical of what was a feeble regulator. We had only looked previously at the regulator and the fact that it was under review, but today the final decision was made on the future of the FRC. Founded in 1990, the Financial Reporting Council was today confirmed by the Government as being no more. In its official press release, the Government stated that, after considering the Kingsman Review, the FRC would be replaced with a new regulator. That regulator will be called the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority . The business media are reporting that the new regulator ‘ will have stronger statutory powers, including the ability to make direct changes to accounts and powers to require rapid explanations from companies and publish reports ab

In this post, we will examine the calls made today by a US Senator in relation to the leading technology companies. We covered the issue of oligopolies and market dominance in a recent post , and the issues are the same within the technology sector. However, a legislative approach that was taken in the 1930s is being cited as a good approach to take now, which is line with the common mantra in the modern day where everything was better and more effectual ‘in the past’. In this post we will take a step back to examine whether that past approach really was effectual, and discuss whether it really is applicable to the modern marketplace. David Cicilline, a Democratic Head of the House antitrust subcommittee in the US, said today that imposing a system akin to the Glass-Steagall Act upon the technology industry would potentially serve to restrain the size of the largest technology companies and bring them in line with a more consumer-based purpose. Speaking to the Financial Times ,