Bank may seek fraud statements
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Bank of England is considering forcing senior directors of banks to sign an annual statement confirming that adequate systems and controls are in place to prevent securities fraud within their organisations. The proposal is the latest in a series of suggestions from regulators designed to prevent the sort of systematic fraud that caused the collapse of Barings in 1995.
The idea, which was floated in an essay in the Bank's latest 'Financial Stability Review', would see the chief executive and chief financial officer of banks promising that Banking Act requirements and policy guidelines had been complied with. The proposal would closely mirror a system in New Zealand where false or misleading disclosure statements incur potentially severe civil and criminal penalties.
The idea of the disclosure statement comes after a similar controversial proposal by the Securities and Futures Authority. It suggested a new rule imposing a direct duty on senior executive officers to take all reasonable steps to ensure their firm's employees act in a way which avoids seriously damaging its reputation.
That proposal caused a storm of protest because it appeared to imply a reversal of the burden of proof. The SFA subsequently modified the suggestion so that the onus of proving misconduct remained with the regulator, as at present.
The Securities and Investments Board also put out a consultative paper in July on the responsibilities of senior managers. SIB suggested that every firm should have to prepare a statement setting out its management structure and defining where responsibilities rested.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments