KLiK Gambar Untuk Pendaftaran ONLINE BERSATU

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

dinturtle

Tuduhan Berat AG Swiss - Apakah Malaysia Sudah Tidak Ada Kemaluan Yang Perlu DiPertahankan ?

Ramai yang dah baca artikel Mkini semalam bertajuk  Bank BSI SA hadapi tindakan jenayah kesalahan berkaitan 1MDB  di mana dilaporkan AG Switzerland telah memulakan prosiding jenayah terhadap BSI berkaitan kes penggubahan wang haram 1MDB
 Pejabat Peguam Negara Switzerland (OAG) telah memulakan prosiding jenayah terhadap Bank BSI SA kerana gagal mencegah kesalahan berkaitan dengan 1MDB.

"OAG mengesyaki sesuatu dalam organisasi dalaman Bank BSI SA.

"Adalah dipercayai bahawa kerana kekurangan ini, bank itu tidak dapat mencegah kesalahan yang kini disiasat mengikut prosiding jenayah berhubungan dengan 1MDB," katanya dalam satu kenyataan hari ini.

Menurut OAG, mengikut Kanun Jenayah Switzerland, sesebuah syarikat boleh didakwa jika disyaki tidak mengambil semua langkah-langkah munasabah yang dikehendaki untuk mengelakkan pihak ketiga daripada melakukan kesalahan-kesalahan, terutamanya dalam pengubahan wang haram atau kesalahan rasuah tertentu.

"Prosiding jenayah dimulakan pada 23 Mei terhadap BSI SA adalah berdasarkan maklumat yang didedahkan oleh prosiding jenayah yang berkaitan dengan 1MDB dan mengenai isu-isu yang dibangkitkan dalam Lembaga Penyelia Pasaran Kewangan Switzerland (Finma) pada 23 Mei.

"Maklumat ini menunjukkan bahawa kesalahan pengubahan wang haram dan rasuah oleh  pegawai-pegawai awam asing kini disiasat mengikut konteks kes 1MDB boleh dielakkan jika  BSI SA diuruskan sewajarnya," katanya.


Di bawah saya copypaste kenyataan akhbar dari FINMA ( KLiK ) berkaitan laporan berkenaan. Hanya melalui pembacaan kenyataan akhbar itu baru jelas tahap keseriusan tuduhan terhadap 1MDB.

Kenapa pihak Wisma Putera dan Kementerian Luar Negara tidak beri sebarang respon kepada kenyataan dari FINMA ini ? 

Ya, tindakan adalah ke atas BSI, yakni bank yang berasal dari Switzerland tapi tuduhan berkait aktiviti penggubahan wang haram milik 1MDB dan politically exposed persons (PEPs), apakah pihak berkuasa Malaysia berasa tidak ada keperluan untuk beri sebarang reaksi ? Kenapa tidak protes ?

Apakah Malaysia sudah tidak ada kemaluan yang perlu dipertahankan ?

                          ************************
 
24 May 2016
Press release

BSI in serious breach of money laundering regulations

Through business relationships and transactions linked to the corruption scandals surrounding the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB, BSI AG committed serious breaches of money laundering regulations and “fit and proper” requirements. This is the outcome of enforcement proceedings launched by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA. In the case of 1MDB, the bank executed numerous large transactions with unclear purpose over a period of several years and, despite clearly suspicious indications, did not clarify the background to these transactions. Among other measures, FINMA has ordered the disgorgement of profits amounting to CHF 95 million. FINMA has also launched enforcement proceedings against two of the bank's former top managers. At the same time, FINMA announces its approval of the takeover of BSI by EFG International with the condition that BSI will be integrated and thereafter dissolved. This takeover is a positive development providing clients and employees with a perspective for the future. 
 
FINMA launched enforcement proceedings against BSI in 2015 after indications that the bank had breached money laundering regulations. The problems related to business relationships and transactions in the context of the corruption scandal involving the Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB. FINMA investigated a large number of transactions, as well as the internal processes and organisational control functions at the bank. The proceedings were concluded in May 2016. FINMA also closed its investigation and sanctioned BSIs misconduct in the Petrobras case. In connection with the same two cases, FINMA has investigated more than twenty other Swiss banks and launched proceedings against six of those banks. 

1MDB: deliberate management decision

In the context of 1MDB, misconduct on the part of BSI was particularly serious. On numerous occasions, business relationships relating to 1MDB were discussed at top management level. This was particularly the case when at the end of 2013 FINMA highlighted to the bank the many serious risks inherent in the client relationships and pressed the bank for further clarification. Nevertheless, the bank's Board of Directors and Executive Board knowingly and repeatedly expressed their intention to continue with these financially lucrative client relationships without adequately clarifying the numerous clear risk indicators or controlling the said risks. 

BSI in breach of money laundering regulations  

In its proceedings against BSI, FINMA found serious shortcomings in the bank's anti-money laundering processes resulting from inadequate risk management and the failure of the internal control system. FINMA's findings are as follows: 
  • In the period from 2011 to April 2015, there were serious shortcomings in identifying transactions involving increased risk. These failures related in particular to business relationships with politically exposed persons (PEPs), the origin of whose assets was not sufficiently clarified, and whose dubious transactions involving hundreds of millions of US dollars were not satisfactorily scrutinised.  
  • The bank repeatedly, systematically and for an extended period breached its obligation to establish the necessary documentation for transactions with increased risks. 
  • In the context of 1MDB, the bank had business relationships with a range of sovereign wealth funds whose accounts were booked in both Singapore and Switzerland. The fact that this was BSI's largest and most profitable client group was reflected in the remuneration paid to the bank employees involved. 
  • The fees charged were above average and out of line with normal market rates. Senior management at the bank did not question why the sovereign wealth funds should use a private bank to provide institutional services and pay excessive out-of-market fees for doing so. 
  • In the context of the 1MDB case, the bank failed to adequately monitor relationships with a client group with around 100 accounts at the bank. Transactions were executed within the client group and with third parties without the bank adequately clarifying their commercial justification.
    • In one case involving a deposit of 20 million US dollars, for example, the bank was happy to accept the client's explanation that the funds involved were a "gift". In another case, an account was credited with more than 98 million US dollars without any effort to clarify its commercial background.
    • The bank executed transactions involving similar amounts even though in some cases the explanations and contractual documents obtained contradicted the purpose of the account as stated when it was opened.
    • Transactions were often generically justified on the basis of loan agreements, although the agreements provided no sufficient explanation of the real background to the transaction in question.
    • Finally, in many cases there were clear indications of pass-through transactions. In one case, 20 million US dollars were routed through a variety of accounts within the bank on the same day before eventually being transferred to another bank. Transactions of this kind are often a clear indication of money laundering. Nevertheless, the bank failed to properly document or carry out plausibility checks on these transactions or was happy to accept the explanation that the beneficial owner of all the accounts was the same person or that the transactions were being executed for "accounting purposes".
  • The bank executed substantial transactions for the foreign sovereign wealth funds, in some cases involving hundreds of millions of US dollars, without adequately clarifying the background to them.
    • The sovereign wealth funds' assets were typically invested through specially created intermediate structures. BSI supported the development of these structures with the aim of achieving a higher level of confidentiality for the investment activities. Ultimately, however, BSI was therefore unable to determine how these assets were invested.
    • This was recognised by some within the bank and flagged up as an issue. In 2012, one employee of the bank sent the following communication to management: "My team is implementing these transactions without really knowing what we are doing and why and I am uncomfortable with this. […] there should be a stronger governance process around all this." However, no further action was taken by the bank in this regard.
  • The client advisor responsible for these relationships was repeatedly notably uncooperative in terms of compliance, particularly in dealing with the inadequate clarification of transactions. Management was aware of the situation but gave their support to the client advisor instead of the Compliance department. Consequently, no corrective action was taken and bonuses, for example, were unaffected. In fact, the opposite was the case. The client advisor in question was one of the bank's top earners. 
  • Exceptions to the bank's internal rules were made for important clients and justified as special client service. Management was informed, but took no action to monitor these exceptions.
  • Overall, the management of the BSI Group during this period did not adequately supervise its subsidiary in Singapore, even though they had close and frequent contact and the Group's executive management was represented on the subsidiary's Board of Directors.
Summary: FINMA has therefore come to the following conclusions: The deficiencies identified constitute serious breaches of the statutory due diligence requirements in relation to money laundering and serious violations of the principles of adequate risk management and appropriate organisation. BSI was therefore in serious breach of the requirements for proper business conduct. Right up to top management level there was a lack of critical attitude needed to identify, limit and oversee the substantial legal and reputational risks inherent in the relationships. 

FINMA orders the disgorgement of profits and launches proceedings against individuals

In addition to taking action to restore compliance with the law, FINMA has taken the following measures:
  • Disgorgement of illegally generated profits: The serious breaches of supervisory law linked to the client relationships the bank maintained over the period under investigation enabled it to charge high fees. FINMA has ordered the disgorgement of illegally generated profits in the amount of CHF 95 million. The money disgorged will go to the Swiss Confederation. 
  • Clarification of individual responsibility: In enforcement proceedings launched in May 2016, FINMA is investigating two former top managers to determine what they knew about these breaches of the law, how they behaved and their individual responsibility. FINMA reserves the right to launch further such proceedings.

FINMA approves full takeover of BSI by EFG with conditions

At the same time as the closure of the proceedings, FINMA has approved the full takeover of BSI by EFG International under the condition that BSI must be completely integrated and dissolved within 12 months. None of the BSI top management responsible for the misconduct will be allowed to take up leadership positions at EFG. This takeover is a positive development providing clients and employees with a perspective for the future.

Good cooperation between authorities

The transactions described above were executed between banks in a variety of jurisdictions and across several continents and financial centres. FINMA therefore worked together with several foreign regulatory authorities when conducting its investigations. Cooperation with Singapore's financial market supervisory authority (the Monetary Authority of Singapore, MAS) was particularly intensive. It carried out on-site investigations at the BSI subsidiary in Singapore in parallel to FINMA's proceedings and identified comparable control failures there. MAS has also informed about its intention to withdraw the BSI's local licence and impose a fine of approx.13 million Singapore dollars (approx. CHF 9 million). In Switzerland FINMA has worked closely together with the Office of the Attorney General, which has also launched criminal proceedings.


FINMA acknowledges the positive cooperation of the newly installed directors of BSI during its investigations. 

dinturtle

About dinturtle -

Author Description here.. Nulla sagittis convallis. Curabitur consequat. Quisque metus enim, venenatis fermentum, mollis in, porta et, nibh. Duis vulputate elit in elit. Mauris dictum libero id justo.

Subscribe to this Blog via Email :

10 comments

Write comments
diny yusof
AUTHOR
May 25, 2016 at 11:10 PM delete

Malaysia ni sudah di 'punyai ' olih Najib & Co . Jadi mana ada malunya lagi . Kemaluan beliau sudah di baluti olih RM ...

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 25, 2016 at 11:43 PM delete

Pihak berkuasa malaysia a.k.a najibal tak akan bersuara dan bertindak... ada dua sebab utama :-
1. Takut orang kampung tau tentang masaalah mega dlm 1mdb.
2. Selagi tiada orang kampung tau, selagi itulah mer3ka selamat... biar satu dunia tau, asalkan ketua jkk, pekerja kemas dan orang kg tak tau... selamatttt aku... katenye.

Reply
avatar
malau
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 1:40 AM delete

1mdb meniaga nombor...
Dapat kat Najib semua lebur...
Nasi dah jadi bubur...
Umno pun masuk kubur...

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 4:43 AM delete

Tak pasal-pasal aku dan anak2 cucu terpaksa menanggung hutang akibat SEEKOR KERBAU yang membawa lumpur...

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 4:54 AM delete

Kuburkan BN di PRK K Kangsar & Sg Besar...

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 7:22 AM delete

Minta maaf abang Din,mereka semua diluar negara dilantik dengan tidak mengikut proses yang sepatutnya.Jika ikut cara Malaysia mereka ini mesti diberhentikan dan pelantikan baru mesti atas nasihat najib baru betul.Baru cerita dalam surat khabar/tv termasuk juga parliment mesti mendapat jawapan bertulis bukan berdepan,bila jawapan bertulis boleh salah orang yang bertaip dan boleh dipinda untuk menyedapkan penerimaan.

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 9:11 AM delete

Soalan tajuk en Din tu sebenarnya tuan punya badan & talibarut2 tau jawapan.
Tapi ibarat org yg berhati songsang & juara kampung...buat pekak la dulu. Najib ni pengamal elegant silence!!!

Reply
avatar
PutraKraken
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 10:12 AM delete

Salam Bro

Rakyat Malaysia memang menaggung KEMALUAN yang amat besar!

Najib dan Kerajan Malaysia memang tak tau malu. Tak ada harga diri lagi. Najib walaupun telah di telanjangkan oleh Swiss AG, WSJ, FBI, MAS, DOJ dll. memang tak malu. Mana dia nak malu sebab memang sah dia bukan setakat tak de TELOQ malah kini sah dia tak de KEMALUAN langsung.

Padir!...mana pegi AG Pandir sekarang?..ade lagi ke?...kan ari tu dia masuk sepital...sakit. Mantan AG Gani Patail yang dipaksa berenti sebab kesihatan nampaknya sehat je...tak de pun dengar dia masuk sepital. Ini AG baru gantiannya pulak yang sakit...kalau gitu kenapa tak diberentikan aje dia?..biar dia kembali sihat...tapi gamaknya tambah sakit lah AG Pandir ni...sebab Swiss AG dan keluar cerita yang benar. Dulu dia cakap je..tapi kini dia bertindak terus. BIKIN SERUPA CAKAP! salute beb...bukan macam AG kita ni CAKAP TAK SERUPA BIKIN...Salute jugak sebab dia berani buat gitu....sekarang dah pecah tembelang mana nak sorok...habis hancus...sampai kemaluan pon tergadai...dah lah sakit pulak tu....Long Live Gani Patail!...

Kepada mantan AG Gani Patail...cuba hang bagitau yang sebenarnya sekarang...ape cerita yang betul?...hang pun dah bersara...setidak tidaknya ko laksanakanlah tanggong jawap ko sebagai rakyat Malaysia...bagi tau yang sebenar dan tiada yang tidak benar melainkan yang benar...kan gitu loyar selalu cakap.

THE RAKYAT DESERVED THE TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 5:27 PM delete

Najib nak sekat rakyat yg memalukan dia melalui privilage paspot Malaysia. Kelak Najib lah yg ada paspot tak boleh travel ke mana2...bukan kerana malu ttp dikehendaki sbg penjenayah oleh negara2 dunia!

Reply
avatar
Anonymous
AUTHOR
May 26, 2016 at 8:22 PM delete

Percayalah sahabat2 semua. Tengok muka najib betul2. Sikit pun dia tak peduli. Strategi terbaik ialah teruskan pertanyaan kepada najib. Satu hari insyaallah dia akan tercakap. Asak dia kow2. Najib ni satu hari nanti insyaallah akan jadi sasau.

Reply
avatar