Dear Mr. Tan
Seek your views on the following:
Q1 Can sue the RM personally for mis-selling and mis-representation, if I am not happy with FI investigation.
Q2 If I sue the RM, do you think the FI will defend her or the RM has to defend herself.
Q3 Do you think Leonard Loo is a possible choice, or get another lawyer?
Actually, money loss can be earned back. It saddened me that many uncles and aunties may not even know they are intoxicated OR those who are intoxicated may not know how to fight on ground of mis-selling and mis-rep which is a legal concept.
I think MAS is making it worst for investors. Imagine, we are cheated, now we have to prove that we are “idiot” ie “vulnerable or mis-selling or mis-rep” to get back our money?
Suing the RMs is the best bet you have about miss-selling. Is is to force a confession and get them to spill the beans. Otherwise the FIs are sticking to their guns with the blessing of the regulator.
ReplyDeleteYou will be doing a great service to the whole industry. The industry will be embarrassed that they have been fleecing the consumers all these years. This includes the life insurance and the agents.
You are right , sue the RMs to get the truth out.After all they are the middlemen or salesmen who sold you.
ReplyDeleteTheir excuse is they have been pressured by their superiors to lie and cheat but then an honest RM with conscience would resign instead of being used and abet in the crime.
I know of a supervisor of RMs asked for transfer to another department to avoid pressuring his RMs to engage in unethical practices.
This excuse is lame and it is not a good defence to absolve themselves of their wrong doings to their clients.
Suing the RMs is a good move because the FIs will be dragged in too inevitably. This is where all the dirty linens will be washed in public.
I don't think one can sue the RM. The RM represents the bank.
ReplyDeleteThe RMs and the Banks are severally or jointly liable . It is a matter of expediency whoever you want to sue.
ReplyDeleteSue for all you want. I think in the end, we all lose. Singapore will lose its credibility as a financial hub...investors will shy away from S'pore. Many will be left jobless as a result.
ReplyDeletePlease rethink.
The entire world, including wall street, has lose credibility.
ReplyDeleteNo point suing the RM, they represent the banks and they, are too ordinary people, who are not cash rich enough to compensate you on your losses..
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "No point suing the RM, they represent the banks and they, are too ordinary people, who are not cash rich enough to compensate you on your losses.."
ReplyDeleteI think the same reasons hold for SUING and NOT SUING the RM: [1] They are ordinary people [2] They have no money
Maybe, targeting at the RM will either AROUSE or FORCE the resurgence of their CONSCIENCE. I have no answer? From CASHEW NUT
RMs with conscience left. They didn't want to be part of this scam.
ReplyDeleteThose who stayed were greedy and unethical and ruthless. They only saw money when they saw clients.
Anyway suing the RMs is to get the FIs vomit out the truth.It will be the FIs who will have to pay for the outcome. The RMs are agents of FIs and both are severally and jointly liable.
The cost of making Singapore should not be borne by Singaporeans.They cannot be made the sacrificial lambs to test the soundness of this system. The flaws have been shown.
Instead suing the RMs will be seen by foreign capital as a safe place to put their money and not a lawless place where the powderful institutions can bully the ordinary consumers.
Should teach the FIs , the salespeolple and MAS that conusmers' right and interest be paramount and the purpose of their existence.