Bankers not being fined for bankrupting their bank. Clearly, this is something that the Lord High Tax Denouncer and all around economic expert will be quick to condemn. For a bank has been let off a £120 million fine purely on the basis that they’ve not really got the cash to pay for it.
So what? They did wrong, there’s no favourtism in RitchieWorld, the guilty must be punished:
The …. Bank has escaped a fine from regulators for management failings in the years leading up to its near collapse in 2013.
The Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority, which oversees Britain’s biggest banks, criticised internal procedures at the bank that led to the discovery of a £1.5bn capital hole in 2013 and the lender being bailed out twice by investors including hedge funds.
There were “serious and wide-ranging failings in …. Bank’s control and risk management framework during the period from July 22 2009 to December 31 2013,’’ the PRA said.
“….. Bank had a culture which encouraged prioritising the short-term financial position of the firm at the cost of taking prudent and sustainable actions for the longer-term,’’ it said.
Still, the PRA waived a potential £120m fine on the grounds that it would hinder the bank’s efforts to boost its financial strength. The Financial Conduct Authority, a separate regulator, also waived a potential fine.
“The serious failings in this case merit a substantial financial penalty,’’ the FCA said.
Hmm, what’s that? It was the Co Op? Where Ritchie said it was discrimination by the regulators to insist that the board had at least someone on it who had the first clue about banking?
Might be waiting a bit for that condemnation, eh?