Saturday, November 5, 2011

Singapore court sides with banks 4: Discriminating Singaporeans

While DBS paid full compensation to Lehman Brothers minibond investors in Hong Kong [see this] and is the first bank of Hong Kong to do so, it decided to fight Singaporean investors.

Around end of march 2011, BBC reported that HKMA and SFC finally got 16 other banks to repay investors of Lehman Brothers minibond for up to 96.5%. That 16 others banks were already more than 2 years later than DBS.

Comparing HK and Singapore
HK regulators are extremely corrupt, often acquiescing the rampant abuses of people in financial market by big institutions. They are no watchdog of people.

In 1987, eldest son of Ng Teng Fong, Robert Ng was speculating in futures contracts on the Hong Kong Futures Exchange through two Panamanian-registered companies when the October 1987 global stock market crash began; his paper losses reportedly reached HK$1 billion. An investigation by the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Royal Hong Kong Police revealed that Ng had avoided required margin calls through collusion with one of his brokers. However, in the end, no charges were laid against Ng because the colonial government of Hong Kong felt that prosecuting him would pose a risk to overall market stability. Hong Kong taxpayers were screwed by providing massive funds for a bailout.

Robert walked free screwing everyone.

The fact that HK regulators stand behind the investors on the issue of Lehman Brothers shows that the banks were cooking such a big fraud that even crooked regulators are unable to stomach. The banks dare not even go to court with HK regulators, they yielded.

And the fact that ball-less DBS became the first bank to compensate in HK while fought steadfastly in Singapore using whatever crooked excuses shows that they are confident the Singapore court will side them -- even MAS under Heng Swee Keat has already implicated her in fraud. [see this]

Discriminating Singaporeans and treating foreigners like kings is now reality in Singapore.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

A conservative investor bought a financial product from a financial institution with the understanding (from the sales brochure and newspaper advertisements) that it is a long term bond issued by six leading banks. The bond pays 5% interest per year for a 5-year tenure.

He discovered later that the product he bought is not a bond. And worse, it is bad or toxic.

The product he bought is a very high risk complex financial product. A group of “elites” (financial and legal experts) is responsible for the drafting of the newspaper advertisements, sales brochures and prospectus so that it appears similar to those low risk bonds issued by banks.

The investor complains to the authorities, but the authorities is having an opinion that he must be invested with his eyes open because he did not satisfy the conditions of “vulnerable investors” (i.e. education level must be below primary 6 and age must be 65 or above).

The authorities did not investigate into the complaints of misleading advertisements, sales brochures and the quality of the product (whether bad or toxic). Instead, it is more interested in how the financial institutions train their sales staff.

The group of “elites” and their associates managed to create an impression that the victim is greedy and has unrealistic expectation (such as expect high return and no risk …).

The poor investor not only lost most of his 30-years hard earned money, but also deeply humiliated.