Monday, May 03, 2010

Investigation of fraudulent practices

Hi Kin Lian,

The Straits Times Forum publised a letter entitled "Should MAS Act". A week later, the MAS gave a short reply which was off tangent to the key issue. The MAS said that the jurisdications are different.

In the case of the US, the SEC filed charges of malpractices and fraud  against Goldman Sach. It was not about breaching regulations of the US jurisdiction, but was about fraudulent practices and non-disclosures. Fraud is fraud regardless of the jurisdiction in question.

Resources and power to investigate and prove these are way above the capabilities any individual or group of individuals possess. Investigations with access to confidential documents can only be done successfully, just like in the US, with the direct involvement of the authorities.

There are circumstantial evidence to warrant investigations in the US. Goldman Sach in its defence was also reported (in ST's May 2) to have alleged that other US investments banks were also doing similar things, not just it alone. That proves the point of how predatorial these banks were back then and operating in packs.

How can MAS totally ignore this course of action of investigation when even countries in Europe may also be following in the US footsteps.

Of course, entities like Morgan Stanley are innocent until proven guilty. But how can they ever be proven guility if MAS refuses to investigate. What's in MAS's minds and agenda is anyone's guess. But it will be a Himalayan task to attempt a private class action suit in the US on transactions booked in Singapore without the sympathetic support and empowerment of local authorities.

18 comments:

  1. Morgan Stanley needs to be protected because it is one of Uncle Sam's and S'pore worry about offending them & driving them away elsewhere & lose jobs. So you local investors just have to be sacrificed because you don't carry enough weight.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Along the lines of "It is important for Singaporeans to think for themselves"

    1. What is MAS's Big Picture?
    2. Who are the stakeholders in MAS's Big Picture?
    3. Where are you(the individual) in MAS's Big Picture?
    4. Does your individual loss have any impact on MAS?

    Seriously, this is not rocket-science.

    Which is why a Democracy is essential to the well-being of the Individual.

    ReplyDelete
  3. one of the local banks are govt-linked..are u asking them to bite their own fingers

    ReplyDelete
  4. More on U.S. financial fraud

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04232010/watch.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. For MAS to take serious action, hell would have to freeze over or PAP lose 2/3 majority, whichever comes first.

    Just go to MAS website and take a look at who are the international advisors advising MAS on financial sector strategies. And by the way getting handsomely paid from our taxes too.

    Chairmans and CEOs of the following:-
    Goldman Sachs
    JP Morgan Chase
    Credit Suisse
    HSBC
    Morgan Stanley
    Citigroup
    Barclays
    BNP Paribas
    Deutsche Bank
    Standard Chartered
    Allianz
    AXA
    Blackrock
    Swiss Re
    Mitsubishi UFJ
    Nomura

    Besides, PAP needs to protect their pay (linked to GDP) and also their vision of singapore as innovative world-class financial centre.

    Seeking help from govt? They will give you "advise" like:
    Caveat Emptor.
    You go in with your eyes wide open.
    You expect high return with no risk ... you are greedy.
    Go see your lawyer.
    Go see your MP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. MAS is the civil service. Their boss is the political master, which is the PAP government.

    The PAP government is due to 50% seat walkovers, 66% mandate and total of 98% seats obtained at the last election.

    Maybe the PAP believe this can be repeated again at the next election, notwithstanding what had happened to investors in Minibond, Pinnacle, High notes, etc and what MAS did not do enough for these unfortunate investors.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With the unfolding saga in US on those banksters, I get to see and compare how well our regulator perform.

    My conclusion is that they are over paid and under perform.

    Then I wonder will they ask for another pay raise soon? A pay raise on top of their undeserving millionair salary.....

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Singaporean nust be realistice that it is a very complicated case even for SEC in the US to proof the case, I just dont think MAS is equipped or capable of handling such cases.

    It will be better for Singaporean to rely on the US lawyers to take their cases up in the US court to seek compensation. Do join the class action now being offered by the US lawyers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reply to 6:49 am

    The case in USA is also complicated. But the SEC is willing to bite the bullet and take Goldman Sachs to court to prove the case. This act by itself tells a story.

    In many cases, the party that is charged is willing to settle out of court and pay compensation.

    We only need our authority in Singapore to take similar action. Do the hard work and let the court do its work. There is no guarantee of success, but it should not stop one from trying, and to do one's duty.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rex comments as follows,

    i tend to agree with the first commentor's views. As implicated in his post, MAS has its hands tied and mouth gagged by the same party we are trying to find fault with. Moreover, the MAS advisory board is practically majority dominated by foreign "talents" as pointed out by another comment.

    So the reality is that MAS is not able to do anything.

    More importantly, I think this has nothing to do with current government; even if "ABC" Party comes into power 2 elections later, i do not believe that ABC party is about to turn around the MAS Advisory Board either. There are too many interlinked strategic issues.

    Singapore's destiny is much shaped by the big boys, whether we like it or not, we don't really have too much choice, in some aspects.

    So i sympathise with the government's stance of bo-chap, act blur, and wayang policies in this issue.

    rex

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sound like financial fraud is nobody business in Singapore. This is the advertisement to welcome crooks to Singapore.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bo-chap,act blur and wayang policies, remember we pay them sky high rumeration to act stupid in the eyes of these foreign big boys who sit on MAS advisory board.
    Most stupid regulator of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Tan, it is different in the US as SEC has the expertise to take on the big boys. For our MAS, I dont believe that they have the inhouse expertise. Even for the minibond saga, I remember they have to engage and consult external auditirs and lawyers and concluded that the case is very complex.

    So I dont think it is realistic to expect MAS to do what SEC is doing. Better rely on the US lawyers class action and at least you stand a chance to get back something.

    That is just my personal view and I may be wrong and stand corrected as I do not know MAS organisation set up well, it is based on my perception and what I have read in the newspapers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reply to 2:55 pm
    We have the top and most expensive lawyers in town. MAS can engage them to handle this matter. These lawyers can also arrange to get expertise from the US lawyers.

    It is a better of being willing to take on the responsibility or avoiding it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Tan,
    I agreed but engaging top lawyers cost money and since they are of the view that investors went in with eyes open big big, I guess they see no reason to spend that kind of money.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thw class action against FIs for the minibond involves expertise from America, if our lawyers could engage them, why not MAS?
    These people from the regulator just do not want their hands dirty. preferring to sit idle and act "blur", after all why work so hard for a messy job, better concentrate on pushing economic growth and see their pay go up accordingly.
    Who cares if people lose money. As long as they themselves make money, why bother.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Who was the chairman during the period Lehman products were approved and sold ? Goh and Lee ! So just act blur lor.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Money for engaging top lawyers is not a problem for MAS. The real issue is that they do not want to investigate for whatever reasons. Govt has spent money in US to tract Francis Seow.

    ReplyDelete