I posted this item almost as Brian hit the button on his own entry on the same subject. But I think it is worth a second bite at this cherry.
Great work by Fraser Nelson at the Spectator for revealing that Royal Bank of Scotland, which is now almost totally owned by the UK government, has been asking prospective clients about their political affiliations. The exact term is to ask whether a wannabe client is a “politically exposed person”. Now, this maybe more of a cockup than a sign of anything more sinister, so my trigger finger may be getting unnecessarily twitchy, but still. This is, as the commenters on the article Fraser writes says, a classic demonstration of why state-owned banks are bad and ripe for corruption. Special favours will be demanded by the ruling party’s clients. In France, remember, the former state-run Credit Lyonnais bank was a sink of corruption.
RBS is also the parent of Coutts, the private bank, and RBS Coutts, the international version of said. These banks provide clients with offshore accounts. The risk is that such a bank could be put under political pressure to deliver details about its clients, a fact that becomes particularly relevant with so many governments currently trying to shut down so-called “tax havens” such as Switzerland.
If it is the case that RBS has been trying to prize out details of potential clients’ political affiliations, then at the very least the management responsible for this dim-witted idea should resign. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, should serious consider his own position. On his watch, the once very solid, in fact gloriously dull, UK banking group Lloyds has been pressured into buying the debt-laden UK banking group HBOS. Result: Lloyds’ share price has crashed and most of that bank is now owned by the government. (Full disclosure: I bank with Lloyds).
Unbelievable.
Politically exposed persons are a special category under Moneylaundering regulations. They have to be tracked under the Proceeds of Crime Act and pose a reputational and regulatory risk to the company.
The definition is quite narrowly defined and is linked to political activity, not affiliation alone.
On the upside, lists of PEPs will be useful if we have a revolution
It is puzzling that answering ‘Conservative’ or ‘Labour’ would mean you were or were not a “politically exposed person”.
Why did you set up an account with Lloyds? Everyone knows they are rubbish.
Quite happy to shill off the taxpayer then, eh, Jonathan?
Only banks people should join are Alliance & Leicester, Abbey, or the Co-op.
LOL WUT???
Dude! Would you lay off of the cough syrup before posting if I asked really nicely?
I have been an account-holder with Lloyds since 1984 and for nearly all of that time, they have done a decent enough job. There are benefits to being a loyal customer which one does not lightly cast aside. As for the Co-Op, A&L, etc, there are drawbacks with using building societies in terms of the range of products they offer.
As for my “shilling” off the taxpayer, I did not ask for my bank to be screwed by this government, nor, as a taxpayer myself (top-bracket), do I consider myself to be a parasite off the state. However, I may still move to another bank, but the options are not great. Possibly HSBC or Barclays.
I have responded politely to your rather abusive tone so kindly try and be a bit more civil if you want to continue enjoying these comment threads. Understood?
Once government says certain compaines are “too big to fail” the consequences are not just economic.
Even if I believed in their economic theories (which I do not), I hope I would still have the courage to sat “still no bailouts – because bailouts corrupt everything and destroy our freedom”.
“Freedom to starve” – as someone who has always been poor (although I have never gone without food for more than a couple of days) I am not impressed by “we need to do this to save people from poverty” arugments. Even if I believed in the economic theories behind such claims which, I repeat, I do not.
In the end a nation that gives up its freedom to avoid poverty ends up enslaved – and dirt poor.
As for the Cooperative Bank.
I have no problem with people forming coops or communes (monks and nuns have being this for thousands of years).
However, I wish the coop would not spend so much money on advertising – the endless adverts get on my nerves.
Are Brits so sheepish to even tolerate being asked this question? We sassy Americans wouldn’t put up with it for a second. Mind your own effin’ business, buddy!
Vetting is for nominees.