2009年8月25日 星期二

美國聯邦法官拒絕在證券委和美銀和解書上簽字-起時

轉載“起時”博客:(link: http://blog.wenxuecity.com/blogview.php?date=200908&postID=31745)

金融危機發生近一年,雖然金融系統幾乎崩潰, 經濟遭巨大創傷,失業率高昇,人心惶惶,政府用納稅人的錢救助了那些“太大”的金融機構。奧巴馬,布什及所有華盛頓的官員都在譴責華爾街的“貪婪”,但迄今為止,沒有一個人,無論是華爾街,或華盛頓公開站出來,為他們的行為向納稅人道歉。迄今為止,沒有一個主要負責人人因此受到司法的追究。華爾街的銀行盈利照舊,金融衍生品照賣,華盛頓的“國會代表”們只會在無任何法律效力的聽證會上,裝模作樣痛斥華爾街的執行長,企圖換取選民的支持。但金融危機到底如何造成的,誰造成的,為甚麼會造成那麼大的損失,難道只是簡單的“貪婪”?和“投機”? 這裡邊隱藏的巨大欺騙,和黑幕,不知那天才能暴露於天下。

今天的一個新聞讓我分外注意,就是證券委(SEC) 再次試圖和美銀( Bank of America)和解,美銀同意支付三千三百萬的罰款,為去年美林(Merrill Lynch)的年終分紅接受罰款,與證券委和解,並要求聯邦法官傑德· 瑞考夫 (Jed S. Rakoff)在和解書上簽字。美銀去年9月在保森和美林前執行長約翰·贊 (John Thain) 的“欺騙”下,先與美林“訂婚”,12月又在保森和博南克的“槍口下”,被迫“完婚”。而美林隱瞞第四季高達140億的損失,在公佈季報之前,悄悄發了近四十億的奬金。

這是證券委和美銀第二次的企圖了。上次就被瑞考夫駁回,要求提供更多的證據,解釋為甚麼要和解。今天,瑞考夫再次質問證券委和解的原因,如果美銀的管理層撒了謊,證券委為甚麼不起訴,而只要求和解。

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125123100930658077.html

證券委申訴了理由,但被法官駁回。 法官瑞考夫認為證券委的解釋是“不符常理“。

法官瑞考夫強調有義務使“和解”公平和符合公眾的利益。

我在另一篇博文中講到,美國的司法近乎癱瘓,尤其是“白領犯罪”,無法可循,無理可證,用諾貝爾得奬克魯格曼的話說“華爾街的所有手法都是合法”。奧巴馬政府天天嚷著要金融改革,但卻不做改革,不追究危機發生的責任,這樣做,只會掩蓋事實,反而使下次危機發生的可能性更高。而財長蓋特納也在多次場合表示,是錯誤(mistake) 造成了危機的發生。這麼大的錯誤,可能只有“華盛頓”和“華爾街”能犯吧?

這個案子,就是另一例奧巴馬政府企圖用“和解”掩蓋欺騙,掩蓋犯罪,試圖用納稅人的人為犯罪買單。別忘了,我們納稅人已經為美銀投資了450億了。這三千三百萬的罰款是納稅人的錢,我不知道證券委會拿多少分成,納稅人養著他們,而他們卻連一個麥道夫都抓不到。

但願瑞考夫法官能主持正義,讓納稅人給回一點對司法的信心。請繼續關注。

2009年8月22日 星期六

王子犯法:無罪?有罪的是抗議王子犯法的庶民們?

(據8月23日太陽報)“警方證實,由今年一月至本月二十日,中區警區共接獲十九宗與雷曼事主示威活動有關的報案,當中涉及傷人、恐嚇及於公眾地方行為不檢等。現時共有十六人被捕,當中八人因證據不足獲釋,其餘八人保釋候查。
法律界人士梁永鏗指出,任何人在示威過程中作出過激行為,例如刑事毀壞及傷人等,社會絕不會接受,但如果苦主只是透過帶有激烈性字眼的口號,藉以宣洩不滿情緒,梁則認為是情有可原。另一方面,他促請證監會及金管局做好自己的角色,搜集足夠證據,向涉嫌違規的銀行作出處分。
”


現實是:
- 在近日已經有兩個苦主突然被警察就未有確實的證據、而且非常輕微的事故帶返警局調查。
- 2008年9月至今以來,由受害人個人(不是有錢勢的金融機構或財團)給警方提出的數千宗對金融機構及其職員之金融欺騙的相關報案,警方對於相關金融機構和職員做出過甚麼相關調查呢?

警方連續對2至3個月前在某一大銀行示威的苦主採取行動, 但卻對銀行銷售產品過程中偽造罪行的報案置之不理,明顯是有強烈的政治意圖。難道說:當金融機構行騙的時候,司法機關就可以一拖再拖(以冠冕堂皇的理由)而最終不了了之了?

當金融機構對一些參與抗議的苦主們有投訴的時候,警方就會迅速採取相應的行動。對無權勢無商業巨頭機構做背景的普通百姓極盡威嚇恐赫之能。參見“關於警察濫用職權,給警察局的一封公開信”。這簡直是黑色恐怖!

深受金融詐騙的苦主們的相關投訴呢?警方一定是在“認真”處理的過程之中吧?這麼複雜的產品,警方大概是看不明白的? 銀行大概也是被雷曼欺騙了,銀行可能是只理解傭金而不理解產品的真實特徵和風險,而蒙查查地做了幾年的產品銷售。誠如一個藥品銷售商給學生們賣了幾年毒品,可是毒品並不是該藥品銷售商製造的呀。要抓,也要抓毒品製造商和買毒品的學生們呀。怎麼可以怪到藥品銷售商的頭上來了呢?

金管局象保護心愛王子一樣地庇護銀行。 證監會,也只有在回購談判的最後關頭跟銀行家們叩頭投降,最後的回購建議不僅僅連究竟誰錯,證監會對於銀行有甚麼錯/或有甚麼關注等根本不提,乾脆連“錯”和“關注”都不敢寫入。監管機構和政府的態度這讓警方怎麼能夠因為有幾千名苦主報案就因此去調查銀行了呢? 警察要向政府/特首負責。而特首的主要責任之一是對銀行和銀行家負責,對吧?特首是來自警察之家,當然理解警察向政府/特首負責的心態和制度。還是束之高閣慢慢地調查調查吧,“一萬年不久”。過了今生還有來世... 特首不是來自雷曼苦主之家,自然不能理解苦主們信任“銀行理財”的後果是:過去的存定期時的“悠閒生活” 變成了現在的“遊行生活”。。。

與此同期間,關於金融欺騙, 紐約的 檢察官 和 FBI 們做了些甚麼呢? 請按此連接:

http://minibondvictim.blogspot.com/2009/08/while-hk-police-have-busy-with.html

2009年8月20日 星期四

Open Letter to Commissioner of Police Regarding to Police Abuse of Powers

(轉載)
An Open letter to the Commissioner of Police regarding to the latest episode of Police Abuse of Powers

Mr. TANG King Shing

Commissioner of Police , Police Headquarters,

Sirs,

I write on behalf of Ms. Tracy Ho as well as the Alliance of Lehman Brothers Victims in Hong Kong to complain against your officers who authorise the ‘dawn raid’ against Ms. Ho for reason that she is suspected of having committed an act of common assault.
The alleged assault takes place at about 1625 hours on 21st May 2009 outside the Bank of China Building, which is situate at no. 1 Garden Road, Central. In addition to the gross disproportion between police action and the nature of the allegation, there are numerous dubious acts on the part of your officers during the process that could only be explained as intending to maximize the harassment and distress inflicted on Ms. Ho and her family.

The Dawn Raid

2. At about 07:30 hours on 19th August 2009 five detectives (three male and two female) in plain clothes claiming to be attached to the Central Police District or Division knocked on the door of Ms. Ho’s Residence in Choi Hung. The visit is a total surprise and when Ms. Ho answered the door your officers insisted that they wanted to enter the premises before they would reveal the purpose of their visit.

3. With utmost reluctance and distress of her family, Ms. allowed the officers into her home. One of the officers then produced a photograph to Ms. Ho and asked if she is the person in it. Although the photograph does not show her face, Ms. Ho recalled the scene which is the protest outside the Bank of China Building mentioned above.

4. When Ms. Ho was about to admit that she is the lady on the photograph, one of the officer threatened her to immediately produce the clothes and shoes she worn that day or else they would search for the items themselves. Perplexed by the sudden police interest in the event that happened months ago and pressured by the threatening language, Ms. Ho complied with the demand and produced the items accordingly. She was then asked to follow the officers to the police station for further enquiries but before leaving the premises she was asked to sign on the notebook of one of the officers that it was not an arrest and she was not therefore handcuffed.

A Trivial Offence

5. Ms. Ho arrived at the Central Police Station at Arsenal Street at about 0930 hours after having been taken to and asked to wait at the Ngau Tau Kok Police Station for some time during which your officers were presumably completing some formalities to record their action in another police area.

6. In the Central Police Station, Ms. Ho was shown a video footage lasting for about 10 to 15 seconds in which her right foot seemed to have a momentary contact with the buttock of a bank staff. Apparently the footage was shot in a commotion where attempt was made by the bank staff to forcibly remove the protesters. It is understandable that in such circumstances people were jostling against each another and what Ms. Ho was doing then is crucial in establishing the plausibility of the allegation against her.

7. Ms. Ho has a flair for electronic video and audio devices and she has been responsible for filming the public activities of the Alliance almost since the creation of it. When the assault was allegedly taken place, Ms. Ho was actually holding her video device filming the forcible removal of the protesters by the bank staff. Her attention was on the action in front of her and the display screen of her video. It is, to say the least, very unlikely that a person would in the circumstances feel like joining the fray.

8. There is another factor that discounts the truthfulness of the allegation. Ms. Ho is a small, slim young lady whose weight would not be much more than 90 lbs. Could a person with that physique be inclined to provoke a fight? And could a lady like Ms. Ho who has taken part in so many protests relating to the fraud of Lehman Brothers and has always behaved properly, suddenly and without any provocation whatsoever, acted contrary to her personality and disposition? The allegation is so preposterous that no person in his right mind would seriously entertain it. Yet your officers have concluded that the offence is so grave that it justifies a deployment of five officers to carry out a dawn raid for an allegation of common assault where the supposed victim does not seem to have suffered any visible or detectable injury and does not complain for months after the event.

Assault on Law by Abuses of Powers

9. How should the public comprehend a dawn raid by five detectives against a young lady suspected of common assault? Does it not indicate the new low of the state of policing in this city under your watch?
But that is not all in so far as the outrageous police conduct is concerned. For almost one year now Ms. Ho has been the contact person between the police and the Alliance on many occasions especially in respect of application for approval to assemble and conduct procession. Your officers at the Police Community Relations Office in Central District know Ms. Ho well and it would take only a phone call to get Ms. Ho to the Central Police Station to view the video footage and to assist police investigation into the allegation. The differences between asking Ms. Ho to the police station and the dawn raid are that only the latter could inflict the distress, sudden sense of fear, and helplessness on Ms. Ho and her family.

10. The connection between the decision to harass Ms. Ho and another assault complaint against the bank staff at the scene of protest is clear. As mentioned above, the moment when Ms. Ho was accused of committing assault on the anonymous bank staff, she was filming an assault in progress by the bank staff against a protester.
It is hardly surprising that the protester would sustain injury given the way she was man-handled by the bank staff. As it was, she was taken to hospital, and stayed there for days for medical treatment. We also learn that a complaint of assault was lodged with the police by her or subsequently with the medical findings of the injury she sustained. Despite the evidence, no action has been taken against the bank or the assailant by the police, just like other crimes related to the Lehman Brothers fraud.

11. In the circumstances, it is an irresistible inference that the police harassment against Ms. Ho is motivated by the desire to please certain influential individuals affiliated with the bank.

12. The allegation against Ms. Ho is so trivial that she is granted a police bail of HKD100. Against an allegation of common assault that could, technically speaking, be committed by everyone in this crowded community, the police deployed five detectives to conduct a dawn raid on the basis of the flimsiest evidence which comes into being in a commotion caused largely by the bank itself. The commotion would not have happened had the police had the courage and sense of decency to enforce the law. Against the banks for fraud that is proven by documentary evidence that no government official would dare to dispute, not a single officer of yours has the courage to follow your own orders to classify the complaints after almost one year of their lodgments with the Commercial Crime Bureau. Insofar as the Lehman Brothers fraud is concerned, the victims have been deprived of any legal rights and remedies. Would any of the government officials to whom this complaint is addressed care to respond to this latest episode of police abuse of powers?

c.c.
Mr. TANG Ying Yen, Henry, Chief Secretary for Administration
Mr. Wong Yan Lung, Secretary for Justice
Mr. Ian Grenville Cross, Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr. Ian McWalters, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr. Lee Ka Chiu, Director of Crime & Security, HKP

======================================================
From: An Open letter to the Commissioner of Police regarding to the latest episode of police abuse of powers

2009年8月19日 星期三

Is HK now a Heaven for Banking Crooks ?



What have HK Police / Justice department done regarding all the financial fraud related complaints by Minibond / Constellation / Octave victims /other-products, since 15 sept. 2008?
(a) act upon banks' request & demand: Arrested and raided some minibond / constellation victims who participated in protesting banks' over 5 years' fraudulent act;
(b) Taking photos of those who participated in the demonstrations ...
(c) What ELSE ????????

While HK Police have been busy with responding to banks' request & demand: searching & raiding Minibond/Constellation victims because of their involvement in protest against Banks' cheating behavior on Minibond / Constellation / Octave,
What have the financial center New York's legal system done so far?


In the recent news:

1. "New York Attorney General sues Charles Schwab over securities sales" (Aug.17)
NEW YORK - New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed a lawsuit Monday against the brokerage unit of Charles Schwab Corp., claiming the firm misled customers about the safety of auction-rate securities.
Cuomo's office has been at the forefront of pushing brokers and underwriters of auction-rate securities to repurchase them from investors who were left with steep losses after the market for the investments collapsed in early 2008.
The suit against Schwab is aimed at forcing the retail brokerage firm to repurchase the securities at face value from investors.
...
Last month, Cuomo's office notified San Francisco-based Charles Schwab that it was planning to file the suit against the retail brokerage firm for claiming the securities were safe investments while selling them to customers.
In a statement Monday, Cuomo said: "Charles Schwab owed its customers a duty to properly understand and make accurate representations concerning auction-rate securities. Today we commenced a lawsuit to remedy Schwab's repeated breach of that duty."
...
related link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/32447041

2. "Credit Suisse broker convicted of fraud" (Aug.17)
A former Credit Suisse broker was on Monday convicted by a jury of fraudulently selling risky auction-rate securities in one of the first criminal prosecutions to emerge from the two-year-long credit crisis.

The guilty verdict against Eric Butler, 36, comes after a three-week trial in which prosecutors accused him and his former colleague, Julian Tzolov, of scheming to generate higher sales commissions by lying to clients about what kind of securities they were being sold.

“The defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations saddled investors with unknown risks they did not bargain for,” said Benton Campbell, US attorney for the eastern district of New York.

“This case shows that those who engage in such schemes will be held to account for their criminal activity.”

related links:
- http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57G4HK20090817?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews (reuters)
- http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel09/nyfo081709a.htm (FBI press release)

3. 2008-News:
US Regulators alleged that brokerages misled investors into believing that auction rate securities were safe, cash-equivalent products, when in fact they faced increasing liquidity risk. Major financial companies Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley,UBS, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia Corp.,and others that sold auction-rate securities have reached 100% buy-back settlements.


2009年8月10日 星期一

Questions Regarding Wing Hang Bank's Minibond Purchaser Confirmation and Instruction Form

In the Wing Hang Bank's Minibond Purchaser Confirmation and Instruction Form, for Minibond Series 30 (January 2007),
the "Declaration " has Clause 11 as the following:
"11. I/We understand that I/we can read copies of the display documents as listed in the Programme Prospectus at the offices of the arranger as set out in the Programme Prospectus;"

However, the 'Clause 11' does not detail what the ‘display documents’ are.
By contrast, the same provision about ‘display documents’ is not available in the Minibond Purchaser Confirmation and Instruction Form for Series 27 (August 2006).


The Question is:
What are the 'display documents' referring to in the 'Clause 11' ?

Wing Hang Bank has been an experienced Minibond distributor since 2003. Why can't Wing Hang Bank clarify this?

關於永亨銀行迷債“購買者確認及指示表格”之疑問

永亨銀行於2007年1月銷售的迷債系列30之“購買者確認及指示表格” 的 “聲明" 之第11條有如下內容:
“11。我/我們明白我/我們可親臨安排人於計劃章程所述的辦事處,查閱計劃章程內列為可供查閱的文件;”

可是,這第11條並沒有指出這些“可供查閱的文件”究竟具體是指哪些文件。
- 永亨銀行為甚麼不明確指出這些“可供查閱的文件”究竟具體是指哪些文件呢?給銀行的詢問也沒有回答。
- 另一令人疑惑之處是,在2006年銷售的迷債(如8月銷售的系列27)之“購買者確認及指示表格“,並無此第11條的內容。
為甚麼2007年開始有這第11條,而2006年的就沒有呢?

永亨銀行自從2003年開始就銷售迷債了(包括系列2003年9月的迷債系列6以及更為早期的迷債系列),直至2007年7月的系列33。 儘管並沒有參與系列34-36的銷售。永亨銀行也可算是迷債的經驗分銷商了。為甚麼永亨銀行不可以 回答關於銀行自身的“購買者確認及指示表格”的問題呢?
??????
??????

2009年8月9日 星期日

香港 的銀行,金融監管機構和政府還有信用可言麼?

對於銀行家而言:
客戶不可貴,誠信價更低,若為傭金故,一切皆可拋。

對於金管局和政府而言:
市民不可貴,公眾價更低,若為銀行故,一切皆可拋。

香港到底是金融中心呢? 還是縱容金融騙局的金融詐騙中心呢?

銀行行騙和庶民行騙不同罪?
我們的政府/議員/法律機構等, 對於倫敦金或祈福黨/跌錢黨等欺騙市民的集團,
是否會施以同樣的寬容, 並以現在為銀行辯解的理由 來為這些集團之欺騙行為辯護?

當受監管的金融機構銀行欺騙市民們的時候, 就不是欺騙了?
就可以對銀行網開一面,不受懲罰, 而要求受騙人來承擔責任?

Cheat me once, Shame on You.
Cheat me twice, Shame on me.

看了迷你債券之銷售和現在銀行+監管+政府之態度,香港的市民會有甚麼體會呢?
大概都意識到了銀行跟老千的關係,意識到政府跟銀行家的關係,
明白自己是萬萬不可以再信任銀行的了!

香港的銀行和銀行家們對普通市民而言還有信用嗎?
香港的監管機構(金管局和證監會)對普通市民而言還有信用嗎?
香港政府對普通市民而言還有信用嗎?

請聽一位苦主的肺腑之言:
[ ...... 然而銀行/金管/証監/特首/議員真的不知答案嗎?
只是他們都認同了香港是一個不需要講道理的地方! 是講權勢,是講錢財.........
我真的無語問蒼天, ... 因為銀行同政府的信用對我來說是全無價值!
.....只見滿目是不義的事,只見遍地是無望的眼神,怎也是無法接受,
但轉眼間郤見自己的影子在其中
]

2009年8月7日 星期五

《转载》有感於 銀行家 之 霸道

十月奔走討商奸
官商勾結暗往還
六折換得假公義
半生積蓄血淚斑

轉載自:作者 "adam100w", http://www29.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=10193929&extra=&page=14