Dear Mr Tan,
I will be facing a legal counsel from X (the financial institution) and one of the 5 other listed representatives in my adjudication. Further, the RM who sold me the minibond is named as a witness. As mentioned to FIDReC and MAS, I do not understand why for instance, a robber can be named as a witness instead of the 'Accused'. The arrangement has the effect of X sending three representatives including one legal counsel against me alone.
FIDReC stand since March (I sent in my complaint in Nov 2008) when I was told of adjudication procedures has been that I have to accept this arrangement if the Adjudicator did not reject.
I am wondering if others are facing similar unjust arrangement? Did they share their solutions with you? Appreciate if you can provide some advice. Thank you.
REPLY
Many investors have expressed unhappiness with the FIDREC arrangement and the outcome.
I suggest that you bring up this matter to the Consumer Association (CASE) to ask for consumers to be given a fair hearing. CASE is represented on FIDREC. You can send your letter to Mr. Seah Seng Choon at seahsc@case.org.sg
Nothing is FAIR here. FI can have 3 representatives (1 must be legally trained to attack us) On the other hand, we the victims, have to fight all alone. In the 1st place, the 3 steps procedures imposed byu MAS is already wrong ! Why ask the thief to interview us instead of a 3rd party ? All these are collaborated and UNFAIR! Please turn up on 22nd Aug gathering to support and show them we are not easy to be bullied !
ReplyDeleteBy bringing in big shots is to scare the simple and poor layman?
ReplyDeleteThe FI rejected my appeal to seek compensation in Feb 2009. I wrote in again recently with LONG stories including more "supportive" comments.
starlight
FIDReC basically is a wayang show. The FI rep will be doing the talking most of the time and the FI rep together with your RM (as witness)will perform a "dui chan" (facing to facing singing song) to you and the adjudicator. You will get boiled,angry and frustrated with few words to say when come to your time to speak.
ReplyDeleteI have also lodged in my complaint with FIDReC and the the FI has indicated that they will be sending their legal counsel plus the RM as witness. At this stage I have not been given a date for the hearing and do not know who will be in the panel.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect from a tribunal that is formed by the FIs? Squeeze their own balls? You cannot get fair hearing. Don't waste your time.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a "can of worms"
ReplyDeleteNow it looks like "a silo of scorpions"
Mr. BELIEVE-IT-OR-NOT
This is how the machinery of the garmen works. Where is justice ??
ReplyDeleteIt's a process they let you go thru to show to the world the victims were given a fair hearing. In reality, it's a lop-sided trial with the legally trained person firing questions that trap you who are just layman. I went thru the adjudication and am disappointed as finally the whole judgement still fall back on the documents that victims have signed.
ReplyDeleteYou are not alone,as I experienced the same treatment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did the most questionings and rebuttals that caught the attention of the Adjudicator who concurred with me.
But I still sceptical about the whole thing.
I am still curious to know that this Minibond investment is not covered by the FAA as pointed out by the FI and the Adudicator seemed to agree to it.
Please let us know.
Why so unafir one?
ReplyDelete"The FI rejected my appeal to seek compensation in Feb 2009. I wrote in again recently with LONG stories including more "supportive" comments."
ReplyDeleteI hv been burning mid-night oil for nearly one year now.
My outcome is similar to yours.
What can we do? We open our eyes no use.
One day the sky may open the eyes and help us?
Fidrec is another kangaroo.Don't be made a kangaroo. Instaed of getting a fair hearing you will be interogated like a criminal. Who is the criminal? YOU. The witness is the RM who sold the toxic product. He is the eye witness who testifies that you bought with 2 eyes open big.
ReplyDeleteThe verdict? you are guilty as charged.No compensation for you.
MAS and FI's motives in Fidrec are:-
ReplyDelete1 playing delaying tactics-after a long wait the investors will forget about the whole fiasco
2 divide and rule- more people go to Fidrec, less investor will join class action
If minibond is not covered by FAA and distributors are not responsible for selling toxic products because of misleading prospectus and pricing statement etc, the Fidrec should state clearly the guidelines for grounds for decision so that less people will waste time in Fidrec.
In the MAS Investigation Report published in Jul 09, it was repeated highlighted that some FIs failed to meet various sections of the FAA in the sale of Minibonds to investors by these FIs. If Minibond is not covered by FAA, then why is MAS repeatedly quotely such non-compliance? Could this be a point to counter the banks during the Adjudication?
ReplyDeleteFiDREC counsellors/lawyers should have some key understanding and information on the whole fiasco before the hearing of the adjudication:
ReplyDelete1.The nature of the toxic products and how they
were sold in SG.
2.The HK across the board settlement approach and the GEL buy back model.
3.The residual value of the products so that the compensation % would not be unreasonably low.
4.To be fair to both parties in terms of the no.
of rep and witness.It is definately unfair to have a legal trained lawyer as rep of FI against a layman investor.
5.RM should not be allowed as witness as he/she was the offender of crime. It is common sense that a thief can never be a witness for the trial of robbery in the court.
We really hope that FiDREC is the last resource for justice and upheld the law of fairness. If FiDREC turns out to be another MAS, or just to act and protect the interest of the FIs, it will be the shame of SG, behaving like the king bare in front of the world audience.Can you imagine the ugly scence of above?
All of us can complaint all we want. Where is the action? What can TKL do?
ReplyDeletei) Going to Hong Lim Park and showing support is one way. Continue to make this issue visible is another.
ii) Boycott 10 FIs. Small satisfaction.
iii) Work on our case. Maybe we can ask TKL to let those pending FIDREC case people to met and discuss.
""Securities firms' claims of "Order Executor" is just a smoke screen to fool the public. They have a responsibility toward you under the FAA legislation."
ReplyDeletePlease refer to the website by MIAG. Don't be fooled by the FIs.
In today's ST Forum:
ReplyDelete""Any corporation which carries on the business of providing retail financial advisory services is required to obtain a financial adviser's licence unless it is an exempt financial adviser under the FAA."
But how come the sec brokers can say they are just "orders executor"??
Confused!!
Question: Does it means that if RM or FA are orders executors, they only introduce but bear no responsibilities on what they say?
ReplyDeletee.g. RM told investors after passing them the flyer or brochure:
i) as safe as fix deposit.
ii) 6 reference entities are old, solid companies thus low risk and safe.
iii) This is a bond. Companies are solid and safe.
iv) If you have excess money not use for next 5 years, this is a safe and good investment.
With all the misrepresentation given, then they say, "I am only introducing."
My point is, had the FIs told the RM or FA that this is a very high risk products, competent RM or FA will not recommend it to their trusted clients. Thus the responsibilities lies in the training of the RM by the FIs.
Any comments?
Prospectus, pricing statement etc are very complicated to understand even for non-financial lawyers. If we were to argue on mis-representation of the prospectus, pricing statement etc, can the adjudicator understand the logic of the toxic products?
ReplyDelete""Probably the only taxi driver in this world with a PhD from Stanford and a proven track record of scientific accomplishments, I have been forced out of my research job at the height of my scientific career, and unable to find another one.""
ReplyDeleteIf you want to MAKE A HONEST LIVING, you shd learn from him - the PHD Taxi Driver in Spore.
I am not personally affected by the structured products but I wish to help. It is very troubling to learn that some FIs and FIDREC have tried to pull wool over the victims' eyes. Some time ago, I have tried to explain that in this debacle, there is a commercial case as well as a criminal case.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that at least some FIs misrepresented the products. While the authorities avoid the issue by inventing a non-existent concept of mis-selling, this episode is NOT merely a civil/contractual dispute. There is certainly a criminal aspect to the ongoing saga (cf. the criminal investigation of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns activities in the US).
In the Singapore context, the criminal code (Penal Code) is plain and clear:
415. Whoever, by deceiving any person, whether or not such deception was the sole or main inducement, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
420. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
The cheating clauses in the Penal Code serve the purpose of a catch-all law with respect to cheating. If an investor signed the contract, did he/she do so with all relevant information or he/she was (deliberately) misled/misinformed, contrary to the facts?
If the aggrieved investors have the relevant evidence for misrepresentation tantamount to cheating as defined above, e.g. letters, sales brochures, advertisements, statements of verbal communication, even the MAS investigation report, do file a police report to make an explicit complaint individually. The police report is free and puts the matter on record. Do this in addition to the other actions that are currently being pursued.
The Penal Code has provisions to make it applicable to both individual(s) as well as organization(s), hence the complaint may be customized based on the individual circumstance and evidence.
The police (particularly the CAD) is obliged to respond. Any additional CAD investigation helps to establish the facts and may prove useful in subsequent litigation. The Police may still decide NOT to investigate but it is REQUIRED to explain the grounds for not investigating.
I strongly urge all investors ask a question before the hearing of the adjudication, that is:
ReplyDelete"Is the RM qualified to stand as a witness in this hearing as he is being accused by me as an offender of the law?"
or tell the judge before the start of the hearing:
"As the RM is being accused of mis-sell and mis-represent the toxic product to me, I don't think he is appropriate to stand as a witness in this hearing."
Good idea. After conclusion of FIDREC i.e. semi retire judge decision, I can go and file a police report.
ReplyDeleteAny more good ideas. I will ask the adjudication judge on penal code 415 and 420.
Regards.
Even if the RM is not guilty in the end, right now, she is still a suspect, under investigation by MAS. How can a suspect in her own case be regarded as a witness to the case? This is a big joke!
ReplyDeletethe magic bullet used in the fidrec judgement is YOU SIGNED so even if you can prove mis-selling because you signed you agreed to be mis-sold. Case dismissed! What a disappointment with fidrec!
ReplyDelete