Treasury Select Committee Submission

As many of you will know the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) has issued a ‘call for evidence’ in respect to economic crime.

I have today provided substantial evidence to the TSC in respect to the criminality and wrongdoing by Lloyds Banking Group and particularly their BSU and Board.

Whilst I will not publish the full report here at this time, below is the foreword and summary of that which is contained within my submission.

Economic Crime – Case Study and evidence, and implications for the banking and financial sector.

In 2007 Angel Group and Angelic Interiors were two incredibly healthy and thriving businesses, with significant revenue, profit and assets.

By 2013, Angel Group had been forced into administration and angelic Interiors was struggling under a mountain of costs and consequential damages.

All of this resulting from dishonesty, fraud and money laundering by Lloyds Banking Group, assisted to varying degree by several ‘partner’ firms.

Like almost all cases involving banks and insolvency, and specifically Lloyds Banking Group’s BSU (Business Support Unit) and RBS GRG (Global Restructuring Group), this case features the same ‘death by a thousand cuts’ scenario. An overwhelming series of actions and wrongdoing committed by the bank and multiple partners that, by design, overwhelms the victim, and at the same time forces the victim to pay the costs levied by those involved in, and engineering their destruction, further overwhelming the victim.

It represents the ultimate in bastardisation & abuse of UK laws and codes, including those that define client relationships. In all walks of life, the party that pays the fee is the client, and the party receiving the fee from the client is obliged to act at all times in the best interests of that client.

Whereas, the reality is that whilst these firms took the ‘client’ money, they were little more than Trojan Horses that willingly conspired with the bank and other large firms involved, all of which was against the best interests of the client.

I have sought to filter the thousand cuts, and identify those that most significantly contributed to the death and destruction of the businesses, and the damage suffered by all those that suffered as a consequence.

Over the course of the pages in this report you will see detailed narrative and allegations, all of which is supported by hard evidence, in respect to those ‘cuts’.

It must be understood that this case study should not be accepted as being unique and/or specific to this individual case. It must be understood that this case has substantial evidence thanks to whistleblowers and intensive investigation, the like of which few other victims have.

I can testify that it is clear from investigating this case and multiple other Lloyds BSU cases, that there is always an ‘Open’ and a ‘Hidden’ Agenda. However, almost all victims will only ever be privy to the ‘Open’ agenda and evidence that the bank and their ‘partners’ presents to the victim, and never to the ‘Hidden’ agenda or any of the evidence pursuant to it.

In this case, we get to see evidence pursuant to both the ‘Open’ and ‘Hidden’ agendas. It is clear that there is a symmetry and replication of the ‘Open’ agendas and concealment of evidence that almost all victims endured, and therefore reasonable to presume that the evidence that we have in this case pursuant to the ‘Hidden’ agenda is also symmetrical and replicated in thousands of other cases involving Lloyds BSU and RBS GRG.

Indeed, we have documentary evidence to prove that when Lloyds BSU was aggressively ramping up its activities after the financial crisis, they were taking their advice and guidance from industry experts including, but not exclusively, the Big Four accountancy firms. These same industry experts worked with RBS GRG and others, and therefore it is more than reasonable to presume that this lead to the replication of practises, wrongdoing and criminality across the industry.

As such, this case and it’s evidence should serve as proxy evidence for all victims of Lloyds BSU, RBS GRG, and others.

I have broken down this report into the following sections:

  1. Ground Zero – Lloyds Banking Group IRHP criminality
  2. The faking of a default and the associated and perpetual fraud
  3. Money laundering & fraud using internal ‘Wash Accounts’
  4. The Trojan Horses
  5. Perverting the Course of Justice – The so-called ‘Dividend Claim’
  6. The ‘Trustees in Bankruptcy’
  7. The Hierarchy of Conflict and dishonesty

These sections feature separate reports that I produced as a result of my investigations, and presented to Lloyds Banking Group as protected whistleblower disclosures under FCA rules introduced in 2016.

Each is consistent with disclosures that I made under the Lloyds Banking Group whistleblower policy during my period of employment with Lloyds Banking Group as a Director of FX Trading, and the various wrongdoing and criminality that my disclosures reported and exposed.

The Treasury Select Committee MUST understand that regulators, Government and law enforcement all appear to subscribe to the belief that it is in the public interest to have a strong and thriving financial and banking sector. It is. However, all appear to subscribe to the theory that to achieve this they must all dishonestly conceal the wrongs of the past, and refuse to acknowledge and address the symptoms that created the sickness within the industry.

It MUST be understood that, as with all ‘cures’, that there is inevitably some unpleasant treatment required, and that applying a band aid infected with lies and concealment does not treat the symptoms, it simply allows them to fester beneath the surface, and in so doing perpetuates an ongoing distrust in the industry, in turn creating uncertainty and weakening of the sector.

It is time to rip the band aid off, expose the wounds and the truth, hold those responsible accountable, and compensate the victims.

This has a threefold benefit.

  1. Substantial compensation finally being received by victims will have an economic boost similar to that seen from the PPI compensation.
  2. It will remove distrust and the uncertainty from customers and investors alike, that is cautioning them against investment and borrowing.
  3. IMPORTANTLY, it will establish a deterrent and the moral hazard that is entirely absent. An absence that continues to encourage dishonesty & criminality by large firms and their partners.

I look forward to working with you and discussing the contents of these reports and the evidence within.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *