The Swift report – Protected Disclosures – Number 1 (of Many)

Before each of my disclosures I need to make the following declaration.

DECLARATION: For the record and avoidance of doubt I am a former Director of Lloyds Banking Group (LBG). I worked on the very trading floor where these toxic IRHP’s (Interest Rate Hedge Products) were traded and sold to customers of LBG. During my employment with LBG I repeatedly raised concerns, following the LBG Whistleblower Policy to the letter, and particularly how employees must raise these concerns so as to qualify them for the protection that the Whistleblower Policy declares that they are afforded by law, particularly PIDA (Public Interest Disclosure Act).

At my employment Tribunal LBG introduced, referred to and relied upon Tribunal case law. This and the subsequent disclosures I will be making are made in accordance, and consistent, with PIDA and that Employment Tribunal case law. Particularly, but not exclusively, this demands that to be protected a disclosure MUST:

  • Be more than just a provision of information, it must include specific allegations
  • Be made with a ‘reasonable belief’
  • Be made in the public interest

During and since my employment with LBG I have made further protected disclosures to LBG all of which have been ignored, or been responded to with false representations and/or vague denials. I have therefore escalated these most serious concerns to The FCA, Andrew Bailey (then CEO of The FCA) personally, John Glen MP (Economic Secretary to the Treasury), the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) and Mel Stride as Chair of the TSC, City of London Police, the Serious Fraud Office to name but a few.

All of these escalations and the evidence provided to demonstrate, support and prove them have met with a response that was dishonest and/or obstructive and/or misleading and/or that sought to suppress and conceal both the allegations and the evidence pursuant to them. The result of which is that these concerns, disclosures and evidence have been concealed from the public, in whose interest they were made.

My protected disclosures whilst employed by LBG covered many elements of wrongdoing and, importantly, disclosures specific to conduct and sales practises that targeted and sought to defraud customers, ESPECIALLY, non-sophisticated customers.

THEREFORE, I am making this series of protected disclosures, and do so with more than a ‘reasonable belief’, so as to fulfil the public interest criteria of such a disclosure and making the public aware of them. Furthermore, and for the record, these disclosures are and were initially specific to the conduct of LBG, my former employer, and their various partners and third parties that have sought to suppress or conceal that conduct. Albeit that it will include reference to other evidence obtained that demonstrates the same or similar conduct by other banks and parties, that is included so as to demonstrate the widespread nature of the conduct and to further corroborate the disclosures specific to LBG.

Protected Disclosure Number 1 – The Swift ‘Whitewash’

This week The FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) published the final report and findings of John Swift QC resulting from his Independent Investigation of the FCA’s IRHP Review Scheme.

On the face of it, there are elements within the report that are damning and headline grabbing. However, dig a little deeper and these elements are little more than a veneer and, like a firework, the effect of which dissipates quickly and disappears altogether when you reach the ‘conclusions’.

In my professional opinion Mr Swift QC ‘pulls numerous punches’, has ignored, suppressed or concealed significant and substantial testimony and evidence, much of which actually contradicts his findings. In my opinion Mr Swift’s report is a ‘whitewash’ to the extent it was possible to do so. The result of which is to further conceal the conduct and practises of LBG (and other banks) that breached FCA codes, and/or UK law, and the dishonesty and failings of HMT, The FCA and others that compounded and concealed the bank wrongdoing.

I do acknowledge that I do not know to what extent, if any, the report has been ‘edited’ or ‘manipulated’ by other parties, and that significant and disturbing statements, findings or omissions might be the result of actions by other parties. However, Mr Swift has put his name the the report so presumably supports the report and its findings.

In January 2020 I sent a series of emails to Mr Swift and his team. All of which included significant and substantial evidence to demonstrate and prove the various concerns and allegations I made within the accompanying emails.

These included allegations and evidence to prove them, including that it was Sajid Javid acting on behalf of HM Treasury, and in response to pressure from the banks, including LBG, to limit their liability and to essentially defraud their customers.

(I will go into greater details about this and specific other concerns within dedicated protected disclosures to follow this one)

I was invited to a meeting with Mr Swift’s team on February 12th 2020. Mr Swift himself personally stated in writing that this would be a preliminary meeting with his team, and that a subsequent meeting with Mr Swift personally would follow:

Dear Mr. Carlier,

Thank you for writing to me and offering to share your dossier with my Independent Review. We would be very keen to learn more about this.

As you might imagine, I have a great deal of evidence to shift through and it is unlikely that we could met before March.

However, to ensure that we have proper time to consider your evidence, could I suggest as a prelude that you meet with my Independent Review team at Monckton Chambers in February for a preliminary fact-finding session. This would be with [REDACTED], my colleague from Monckton Chambers and junior counsel, [REDACTED], my communications adviser, and a representative from my legal support team, [REDACTED].

From this initial meeting we can set out the key items for discussion when we meet in March.

I hope this is suitable to you. If so, we would be grateful if you could please confirm your availability for a meeting in February.

Kind regards,

John Swift QC

At the meeting I presented significant and substantial evidence to Mr Swift’s team and walked them through this and other evidence I had provided prior to the meeting to support and/or prove the various allegations I had made and issues I had raised.

This included evidence that proved that the new sophistication criteria introduced into the IRHP Review in January 2013 was not introduced by The FCA, but was instead forced into the IRHP Review by Sajid Javid personally, acting on behalf of HM Treasury and in response to pressure from banks, including LBG, who by this time had discovered that their liabilities from the IRHP review were going to be substantially greater than their worst expectations, and who sought to have HMT intervene and with specific intent to make financial gain for themselves by way of limiting the liabilities and intent to cause loss and risk of loss to the customers that would be adversely impacted by such a measure and be denied the financial remedy that they were absolutely owed.

To be clear. The evidence I presented was specific and proved that this sophistication criteria was forced through by Sajid Javid as described, and AGAINST the wishes of the FCA, MP’s Guto Bebb & Tessa Munt and professionals that were highly involved in the implementation and structure of the review, including Abhishek Sachdev.

Indeed, it was Mr Sachdev that confirmed this in writing to me, and who also testified in writing that The FCA had also confirmed to them that the January 2013 sophistication criteria was introduced not by The FCA but by the HMT and Javid.

As mentioned, I will be making further specific protected disclosures in respect to each of the allegations and issues that I raised with Mr Swift and his team, including the Sajid Javid “issue.” For the moment I wish to focus on the ‘engineering’ of this investigation and its findings.

Within 24 hours of my testimony to Mr Swift’s team and where I walked them through the key evidence and findings I had to prove this, and that implicated Sajid Javid in a fraud against 5,309 UK Business customers to a value in excess of £10billion, Mr Javid resigned as Chancellor. I do not necessarily believe that his resignation was not as a result of my evidence and findings.

On the evening of February 12th 2020, following my meeting, Mr Swift’s team wrote to me saying:

On behalf of the Independent Review team, I would like to thank you for giving evidence to the Review today. We found your input very helpful and we appreciate your candid approach.

Thanks also for providing your documentation prior to, and during, the meeting which we will now take time to properly review. 

Also in this email from Mr Swift’s team they specifically asked:

As we stated, we would like to refer to the email exchange between yourself and Mr. Sachdev dated 19-20 November 2017 in discussions with other persons, and would be grateful if you could please provide your consent for us to refer to this email exchange when contacting Mr Sachdev.

On February 13th 2020, I wrote back giving this permission for Mr Swift to discuss my documentary evidence of this email exchange with Mr Sachdev. I also attached to this email two further pieces of evidence corroborating Mr Sachdev’s statements to me in that email exchange of November 2017, including quotes directly attributed to him.

This documentary evidence included the following publication by a respected journalist:

The FCA has appointed John Swift QC to lead the review which will look at the FCA’s approach to technical issues, particularly the enhanced sophistication criteria introduced by Javid during his stint in different roles at Treasury (2011-2014).

Javid enhanced the sophisticated investor criteria after the initial scheme pilot to include groups of connected clients (known as BIPRU 10.3 groups) and non-BIPRU customers where the aggregated notional value of all interest rate hedging products held, in existence at the time of the particular sale being assessed and held by the customer across the groups was greater than £10 million, the customer will be deemed to meet the sophisticated customer criteria.

A letter sent by Clive Adamson, then the FCA’s director of supervision, conduct business unit, to firms on January 29, 2013 confirmed the post-pilot enhanced sophistication criteria and confirmed Treasury was involved in making changes to the IRHP review scheme.

“The categorisation of ALL customers, including whether or not they were a subsidiary of a larger company, part of a larger group, an SPV — any of the reasons customers would not be eligible for the IRHP review would have been established when the account for the customer was opened by way of appropriate know-your-customer procedures undertaken,” said Paul Carlier, a financial markets consultant at Jupiter 87 in London.

Client categorisation would have been established and checked when necessary credit assessment undertaken for the sale of the IRHP and should have been established as part of the comprehensive review of each case during the IRHP review process itself, Carlier said.

“There is simply no way these ‘categorisations’ were either not already known for every customer, or would not have been established on the case by case basis during the IRHP review,” Carlier said.

That addition to the sophistication criteria reduced banks’ total exposure from about £15 to £20 billion to the £2.2 billion ultimately paid in redress.

MPs Guto Bebb (Con), Tess Munt (Lib Dem) as well as Vedanta’s Sachdev tried to persuade Javid privately to ditch this approach, but it was included nonetheless. A Treasury spokesman did not return calls.

The subsequent meeting, that I had been promised with Mr Swift personally, never took place. No reason given, and Covid could not have been a factor given that there was nothing to prevent the meeting being held remotely by Zoom or other such application.

Why? And why did Mr Swift and his team not challenge any of my evidence or testimony, or contact me to clarify, including that which I sent them following the meeting to further clarify and prove my allegations and issues?

Don’t ask, don’t hear.

In June of this year, Sajid Javid was appointed to the role of Health Minister. This was at a time when we were waiting for the publication of Mr Swift’s report and findings. This gave me great cause for concern in several respects:

a) How could Mr Javid possibly be returning to the front bench and a prominent Government role, given that he was about to be implicated by the Swift report in one of the largest frauds ever committed against UK Businesses?

b) Did this mean that none of my evidence or testimony was being included or referenced in the report?

c) Did this also mean that the highest levels of Government, including Prime Minister Johnson, had been given a copy of this report and were aware that Mr Javid was not going to be personally implicated, and therefore he was free to be appointed back to the Front Bench?

d) Did this mean Mr Swift’s report had been subject to interference and/or whitewashing by Mr Swift or other parties, including FCA and Government, so as to suppress and/or conceal evidence?

I was convinced by Mr Javid’s new appointment in June 2021 that a), b) and c) above were almost certainly true. I wrote to Mr Swift on 5th July 2021 in an effort to confirm, asking him to advise as to which parts, if any, of my substantial evidence and testimony was being included within his final report.

From: Paul Carlier <>
Subject: Re: Carlier Submission for the IRHP Review investigation – Tranche 1
Date: 5 July 2021 at 10:37:29 BST
To: “IndependentInvestigation.InterestRateHedgingProducts” <>

Good morning,

Following the presentation by me of significant and substantial evidence to the Independent Review, and having had a lengthy meeting with the various senior persons managing the investigation, on February 12th 2020, are you able to advise as to what evidence or testimony provided by me, is going to be included in the final report.

And also, when the final report is going to be published?


Paul Carlier

It was not until 21st July 2021 that Mr Swift’s team replied.

On 21 Jul 2021, at 13:25, IndependentInvestigation.InterestRateHedgingProducts <> wrote:

Dear Mr Carlier, 

Thank you for your email. John Swift QC is grateful to you for your various contributions to the Review and found your evidence very helpful for the purposes of informing the Report. However, as you can no doubt appreciate, the Review has received a high volume of evidence from a large number of individuals and organisations and Mr Swift QC has had to be selective in the use of material. As a result, he does not propose to directly refer to your evidence specifically in the Report. 

With regard to the timing of the Report, we would refer you to the FCA’s press release dated 11 March 2021 (, which states that the “report is expected to be finalised and published in summer 2021.” We are unable to provide any further details at this time as no publication date has yet been finalised.  

Kind regards 

The support team of John Swift QC

Mr Swift confirms that the significant and substantial evidence & testimony that I presented to his investigation, and that entirely contradicts several key conclusions of Mr Swift in his report, including the issue of the introduction of the sophistication criteria, was being ‘selectively’ excluded from the report.

THEREFORE, confirming concerns, a), b) and c), and more than suggesting that d) was also true.

How is that possible? How much more of a credible witness do you need to be so as to have your evidence and testimony included within the report? How many bank traders with 28 years experience working on the trading floors of the worlds largest banks, the coal face, including LBG who were one of the biggest culprits in terms of where these toxic products were sold, came forward to provide testimony and evidence supported by those numerous years of experience and substantial evidence?

I wrote back to Mr Swift and copied Charles Randell, FCA Chairman, and one of The FCA Executive Director’s that had supposedly called for this ‘independent’ investigation, and raised my concerns.

From: Paul Carlier <>
Subject: Re: Carlier Submission for the IRHP Review investigation – Tranche 1
Date: 21 July 2021 at 17:21:20 BST
To: “IndependentInvestigation.InterestRateHedgingProducts” <>
Cc: Charles Randell <>

Dear Mr Swift and Mr Randell

(I presume Mr Randell you are one of the FCA Non-execs that ordered this ‘independent’ investigation)This response received today (see below) is incredibly concerning. Not least because I am likely one of the single most credible witnesses [in the sense of highly experienced bank traders and former directors of one of the most culpable banks, LBG] that gave evidence and testimony to the investigation.

For the record:
1.  I was a Director of Lloyds Banking Group, and with 28 years experience in financial markets as a trader and for many of the world’s largest banks.

2. I was a Director in the Commercial Banking Division. The same division as all those involved in IRHP sales and trading.

3. I worked on the very trading floor where all IRHP’s were ’sold’ and traded.

4. I made significant protected disclosures during my time of employment as a Director, particularly but not exclusively, in respect to:

A) The toxic culture and sales practises within the bank 

B) The specific targeting of non-sophisticated for the sale of products for no other reason than the intent to make financial gain

C) The specific targeting of non-sophisticated customers for excessive and undisclosed mark ups.

D) The fact that this amounted to fraud and not mis-selling

5. I presented unequivocal evidence to prove that The FCA, Banks and HM Treasury made false representations as to why the new sophistication criteria was introduced in January 2013, who was responsible for it and that it was with intent to limit the bank liability and deprive 5,309 customers of compensation that they were absolutely entitled to.

5.1. For the record, all 5,309 customers had always been classified by their bank as retail and non-sophisticated and particuarly at the point of sale. The ’sophistication’ of the customer at time of sale dictates the sales process and how the bank must behave, not a ‘re-classification’ several years later.

5.2. We estimate that this resulted in 5,309 customers being deprived of £15bio in appropriate redress.

5.3. The fact that countless false representations were made by the FCA and its executives, HM Treasury and Sajid Javid specifically, qualifies this as fraud by false representation and abuse of position. It is unequivocal that the false representations and abuse of position was undertaken with intent to make financial gain and cause loss or risk of loss to another.

6. I provided you with significant evidence in respect to the IRHP sold to Angelic Interiors, a business owned by Julia Davey, and one of the 5,309 business customers that were told they were in the IRHP review, and rightly so because they had always been formally recognised by the bank as retail and non-sophisticated, only to be excluded from a year later in June 2013, and entirely because of this fraudulent criteria forced in by Javid. 

6.1. I provided a case summary and evidence in respect to this case, specifically in my email to you dated February 11th 2020, included. There were 7 key pieces of evidence attached to that email that proved numerous counts of fraud and wrongdoing by Lloyds in respect to the sale of the two toxic IRHP’s they were sold. 

6.2. I provided susbtantial evidence and testimony that I know you did not receive from other sources or witnesses.
I am sorry but to fail to refer to any of my evidence and testimony is disturbing at best.

I hereby advise you that I am going to publish:

A)  the parts of the transcript of my meeting with you that are specific to the IRHP review and the issues I exposed, and that took place on February 12th 2020, the day before Sajid Javid resgined as Chancellor.

B) The evidence and summaries that I presented to you before our meeting, and the various follow up emails with further summaries and evidence that I sent after the meeting and in direct response to questions that you raised at the meeting, or to corroborate allegations I made at that meeting.

C) The fact that all of this is evidence that I presented to you and that you are choosing to exclude.
You have until 5.00pm Friday 23rd July to object to such publication, and be sure that any objection is lawful and with your grounds for objection.


Paul Carlier

I did not wait for Mr Swift to respond and instead published on Twitter just a few extracts of evidence I presented to Mr Swift and his team, and an extract from the transcript of my meeting with his team on February 12th 2020.

That thread can be found via the link below.

(Please note that I am going to publish further protected disclosures in respect to Mr Swift’s report in the coming weeks. These disclosures will go into greater detail regarding other issues that I raised with Mr Swift, and reference briefly within this Twitter thread, all of which were supported with evidence.)

HOWEVER, I refer you to the extract that I published in this Twitter thread from the transcript of my meeting with Mr Swift’s team. A transcript provided by Mr Swift’s team. As you can see, any names or personal information of Mr Swift’s team have been redacted, and the extract featured is almost all personal testimony made by me. This is my testimony and my personal information and I am free to do with this whatever I wish. I know this, and I’m sure Mr Swift QC being the highly qualified and experienced QC that he is, and all of the many lawyers on his team, also knew this.

(And for the record, I was not asked to sign an NDA or other confidentiality agreement.)

Despite Mr Swift and his team clearly being aware that I was free to publish that which I published, this did not stop Mr Swift’s team from making threats to me in writing on 23rd July 2021 following my publishing of this thread and the extract from the transcript.

Dear Mr Carlier, 

Thank you for your email of 21 July 2021. We note that you invited us to comment, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday 23 July, of your intention to make public the contents of your evidence. Despite this, just one hour after sending the initial email and without awaiting our response, you went ahead and not only published extracts of your evidence to the Review, but also disclosed the contents of our email sent to you on 21 July 2021.   

We regret that you chose to ignore the confidentiality attached to the transcript of your evidence in February 2020 and the private correspondence sent to you by the Review in respect of it. The Independent Reviewer attaches great importance to preserving the confidentiality of the evidence provided to him in the course of the Review, which is not to be made public without a proper process. 

As was pointed out to you in the course of your interview, the fact that individuals who provided evidence to the Review are not named does not mean their evidence was not given due consideration. The Independent Reviewer has carefully considered all the evidence before him, which will be reflected in his final Report when it is made public. Pending publication of the Report, the unauthorised distribution of individual elements of the evidence risks being misleading, as well as breaching confidence of the discussions and the privacy of those involved. 

In the circumstances, we invite you to delete the material you have made public and to refrain from any further publication in the future. 

Yours sincerely, 

John Swift QC’s support team  

An astonishing and disturbing response. With no sense of irony Mr Swift and his team write that for me to publish ‘individual elements of the evidence risks being misleading’, yet has now proceeded to publish his report that includes disturbingly cherry picked evidence only, and only that which supports the desired narrative, and fails to mention or reference any of the evidence or testimony that challenges or contradicts that narrative.

A level of hypocrisy that is consistent with the level of dishonesty demonstrated by the banks and The FCA for almost two decades in respect to IRHP’s and the IRHP Review.

Mr Swift and his team also falsely claim that the information was confidential and that my distribution of it was unauthorised and ‘invited me to delete the published material and to refrain from publishing anything further’. The threat was clear, but the grounds were knowingly false. My testimony. My evidence. No NDA or other confidentiality agreement.

THEREFORE, I am free to publish it under UK data laws and, particularly since it relates to my former employer and issues repeatedly raised with them, under PIDA in the public interest.

FOR THE RECORD, Charles Randell, FCA Chair and an FCA Non-Exec who had ordered the Swift ‘Investigation’, did not respond to my email and the serious concerns raised within it as to the honesty and integrity of ‘ the Independent Investigation’ he had instructed.

I wrote back on same 23rd July:

Be very careful when making threats against me that you know that you have no legal grounds to make, and no legal grounds to pursue or enforce.

Furthermore, the purpose of this investigation is to identify every lesson that can be learned from it. I warrant that it should be more than that given that the scale of wrongdoing, dishonesty and criminality is unprecedented and not just by the banks involved, but also by The FCA and HM Treasury.

You cannot ‘learn lessons’ when you choose to conceal and suppress significant evidence specific to the major issues with the IRHP Review, and further choose to conceal the nature of the evidence and testimony that you have chosen to conceal, ignore and suppress.

You do not get to publish a report with findings under the pretext that it is a comprehensive and exhaustive report, but then attempt to conceal that which you have chosen to ignore, and do so by threatening me.

You are lawyers, so don’t dare try and tell me that ‘what you see, is all that there is to see’. Time and again, and particuarly in IRHP cases that have gone to trial, the cases have been won by banks because the case has been poorly pleaded and therefore the bank is in a position where it only has to reveal that which relates to that which is pleaded, knowing full well that it is an illusion as to the true reality.

You do not get to create an ‘optic’ that seeks to do just that, and by failing to disclose that which you chose not to include.

Finally, I do not care whether my name is mentioned or not, and I do not care if the customer name is mentioned or not. This is not about me, and nor is it about my interests. It is about the public interest, that of the historic victims and the future victims that are virtually guaranteed if your report does not identify and expose every failing.

I refer you to your email of 21st July where you specifically said Mr Swift QC “….does not propose to directly refer to your evidence specifically in the report.”

That is my issue. 

I presented you with evidence that I know 100% that you did not receive from others. Likewise I provided some significant testimony that you will not have got from others, and I did so as a former Director of Lloyds Bank that worked on the very trading floor (the coalface so to speak) where these IRHP’s were sold, and who had made protected disclosures specific to the targeting of non-sophisticated customers for excessive and undisclosed mark ups. Mark Ups that were huge profit generators and the drivers behind the sale of these toxic products.

Indeed, my evidence and particuarly the actual pricing policy of Lloyds, the FM Pricing framework, also revealed just how Lloyds Bank truly determined the ’sophistication’ of business customers. There is zero mention of any of the criteria cited by the FCA or Lloyds that was used by the IRHP Review at inception of it. The nonsense regarding staff numbers, turnover etc.

Indeed, the actual policy document determines that any business with turnover of less than £25mio is a non-sophisticated SME.

And did anyone else provide you with the substantial evidence that I did proving the fraud represented by the introduction of the new and retrospective sophistication criteria in January 2013 by Sajid Javid? I very much doubt it. And with Javid’s inconceivable return to the front bench, it is fair to presume that a decision has been made to conceal this element and Javid’s involvement in the fraud from this report.

All of this is ’smoking gun’ evidence in respect to the failings, dishonesty and fraud that is clear and evident within the IRHP Review.

WHEREAS, you have made threats in your email falsely alluding to my concerns being that I was not being named in the report and in respect to my publishing of evidence I presented to you, and that this could prove misleading.

How so exactly? You stated that none of my evidence was going to be referenced within the final report. How therefore can my publication of evidence that is not going to be so much as referenced within the report, in any way be misleading?

I will not be deleting the material I have already published, and I assure you that when the final report is published a significant journalist will be publishing a ‘benchmarking’ exercise, comparing my evidence and testimony with the final report and its findings.

If you ever make unlawful threats using deliberately false statements and falsely engineered interpretations again, so as to justify making the threats, I will escalate the matter to relevant authorities.

If you maintain that you have rights to make the threats and that you have the rights to demand that I delete my posts, then I look forward to your immediate initation of action to enforce that position.


Paul Carlier

Mr Swift and his team did not respond and, importantly, did not take any action against me in respect to that which I had published and their claims and threats in respect to it. Of course they didn’t. They knew they had no grounds to do so.

HOWEVER, the engineering in respect to this report and/or its manipulation of fact and narrative does not stop there.

In March 2021 The FCA issued a press release confirming that Mr Swift had now presented them with his report. Fortunately several media publications reported on this Press Release and announcement.

The FCA has published an update on the independent review of the supervisory intervention on interest rate hedging products (IRHPs). The FCA confirms that John Swift QC, the Independent Reviewer, has now completed his discovery exercise and recently provided the FCA with his draft report. There will now be the usual fact-checking and representations process. The report is expected to be finalised and published in summer 2021.

I say “fortunately” because The FCA, six months later, in September “Updated” this page, and the original press release and announcement is no longer available. The September update has been discreetly modified.

Importantly, the March 2021 announcement is documented by the media and confirms that Mr Swift had presented The FCA will his full draft report and that it will be published in the Summer of 2021 once the usual review processes have been carried out.

It did NOT say that Mr Swift has provided The FCA with “Part” of his report.

WHEREAS, when an IRHP victim wrote to The FCA asking when the Swift report would be published, The FCA wrote back on September 9th 2021 and stated:

We have processed your request in line with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and our response is below.

John Swift QC has so far provided the FCA with drafts of his report in sections between 8 February and 26 July 2021.

The FCA contradict their March 2021 statement and claim that Mr Swift provided his report to The FCA in parts between February 8th and July 26th 2021.

Sources I have spoken to confirm that this FCA statement in September is false. The report was not provided in parts at all.

It’s my opinion that the July 26th date is significant in that it falls after I raised my concerns with Mr Swift as to the non-inclusion of my testimony and evidence and my threats to publish all of my evidence and testimony given to Mr Swift.

I do not necessarily believe that the July 26th ‘part’ referenced by The FCA was not in fact an alteration or amendment in light of my threats and those of others to publish evidence, and in an attempt to limit the dishonesty and/or misleading nature of the report and its findings. I am happy to be proven wrong, and invite The FCA to disclose that which was provided to them by Mr Swift in February 2021 and that which was provided to them by Mr Swift on July 26th 2021.

Whatever the truth is in respect to what was presented to The FCA in February and later, the FACT is that Mr Swift has published a report and findings that is and will be accepted as ‘Gospel’ by the various parties who benefit from the whitewash. Namely, the banks, The FCA, HMT, John Glen MP, Sajid Javid MP to name but a few.

WHEREAS, he has failed to mention ANY evidence that was presented to him that contradicts his findings. Typically, an independent and objective reviewer would reference this evidence and testimony within the report, and explain how they had considered it, why they had chosen to ignore it, or why they believed it not to present sufficient evidence or arguments or why other evidence outweighed it.

To all those who will read this report, they will believe that the findings are fact, unequivocal and were not challenged, questioned or contradicted by other evidence.

The omission of evidence provided by myself and others is astonishing and disturbing. Indeed, I am forced to refer you to this extract from a document published by Grant Thornton where they summarise Fraud by Abuse of Position.

Section 4: Fraud by Abuse of Position 

Section 4 makes it an offence to commit a fraud by dishonestly abusing one’s position. It applies in situations where the defendant has been put in a privileged position, and by virtue of this position is expected to safeguard another’s financial interests or not act against those interests. 

The term “abuse” is not limited by a definition, because it is intended to cover a wide range of conduct. The offence can be committed by omission as well as by positive action. 

A whitewash (and fraud) is not always committed by what you do or say, but often that which you omit.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.