[guide.chat] bank of england stolen gold
- From: vanessa <qwerty1234567a@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "GUIDE CHAT" <guide.chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:12:42 +0100
The British policy of appeasing Nazi Germany became less tenable when the Bank
of England in March 1939 secretly transferred gold reserves it was holding for
Czechoslovakia to Hitler's central bank soon after his troops conquered the
country. When the transfer became public, the British bankers claimed they had
no choice: The Germans had the Czech gold, even if it was gained by force and
would fuel the Nazi war effort.
Today, finance is conducted digitally, not by moving gold bars from country to
country. This makes it possible?so long as banks cooperate?to impose economic
sanctions on belligerents like Iran, with its clandestine efforts to acquire
nuclear weapons. And this is why there is outrage if sanctions are evaded.
There was such outrage last week when New York's top bank regulator alleged
that a large British bank became a "rogue institution" that "schemed" with Iran
to cover up illegal transactions, leaving the "U.S. financial system vulnerable
to terrorists." The bank, Standard Chartered, is accused of flouting U.S.
regulations. The regulatory complaint quotes the executive running the bank's
U.S. operations as warning his colleagues in 2006 that covering up Iran-related
trades had the "potential to cause very serious or even catastrophic
reputational damage to the group."
The reported response from a group executive director was, "You f---ing
Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going
to deal with Iranians?" (The bank says that regulator's complaint does not
present "a full and accurate picture of the facts," and that it had "acted to
comply, and overwhelmingly did comply, with U.S. sanctions.")
Standard Chartered will have to explain to regulators its alleged "wire
stripping," a practice that deleted the names of Iranian banks from the digital
records of U.S. dollar wire transfers. The allegations cite emails from the
bank's lawyers insisting that payment instructions for Iranian clients "should
not identify the client or the purpose of the payment."
Instead, the complaint alleges "subterfuge" by Standard Chartered bankers,
inserting "NO NAME GIVEN" in the required message field in order to hide the
names of Iranian customers.
The case is controversial partly because the New York State Department of
Financial Services made the charges while the Treasury and Federal Reserve were
still investigating the transactions. Also, Standard Chartered has been
respected as a pioneer in emerging markets.
One of its 19th-century founders was James Wilson, a market-reforming Scotsman
who also founded the Economist magazine. The bank grew alongside the British
Empire, with what one of its bankers called its own "viceroy in each country."
Its first bank in Rhodesia was in a tent, and its first branch in Shanghai
opened the day the Opium War began in 1858. In recent years, the bank's income
has mostly come from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
The bank's long involvement in emerging markets explains why Standard Chartered
was active in Iran. But if the regulator's allegations are proven, its bankers
will seem to have forgotten that technology makes global transactions more
transparent?and that attempts to evade sanctions, as Standard Chartered is
alleged to have done, are not only wrong but are likely to be discovered. Other
British banks fined by U.S. regulators for violating financial and trade laws
include HSBC ($700 million), Lloyds ($350 million) and Barclays ($298 million).
Of course, there are reasons to be skeptical that the U.S. policy of sanctions
can stop Iran's stated goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, even if banks comply.
It's also true that fining bankers in London doesn't deter mullahs in Tehran.
Given Iran's progress, it's increasingly likely that force will be required.
But whether economic pressures can be effective or not, the Czech Gold Affair
of 1939 is an instructive lesson on transparency applied to banking. The Bank
of England could have stopped the transfer of the Czech gold account it held
for the Bank for International Settlements?the request came under duress from
Czech banking officials at Nazi gunpoint. Brendan Bracken, a member of
Parliament allied with Winston Churchill, in 1939 said the transfer of the gold
"sanctions the most notorious outrage of this generation?the rape of
Czechoslovakia."
In an academic journal article entitled "Finance and the End of Appeasement,"
Australian historian David Blaazer cites "gentlemanly capitalism" to explain
why England's central bankers transferred the Czech gold to the Nazis. The
bank's objectives "were to maintain and develop the mechanisms of international
finance" and to "strengthen Britain's place within a thriving multilateral
network of international financial and economic relationships." Worthy goals,
except when larger considerations intervene, such as the failure of appeasement
to stop Hitler.
In the case of Iran, which has been working to get nuclear weapons for almost
20 years, it's clear that appeasement is no option. Financial sanctions may not
work either, but it's not up to bankers to decide whether they like the policy.
Just as the Bank of England's reputation suffered by appeasing Hitler, any bank
that helps Iran's nuclear ambitions by undermining sanctions deserves all the
harm done to its reputation.
from
Vanessa The Google Girl.
my skype name is rainbowstar123
Other related posts:
- » [guide.chat] bank of england stolen gold - vanessa
