PRESS RELEASE FROM THE KAUPTHING BANK HF. RESOLUTION COMMITTEE:
The High Court of England has consented to Kaupthing Bank’s request for permission to apply for judicial review of the legitimacy of the decision taken by the UK authorities to transfer to a third party, without compensation, deposits from Kaupthing Edge accounts at the bank’s UK subsidiary, Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, on 8 October 2008. This decision was a precursor to the decision by the UK authorities to place Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander into administration, which led the bank’s creditors to call in the bank’s loans and resulted in the Financial Services Authority’s taking control of the bank.
The court will now fix a hearing at which evidence and arguments concerning the UK authorities’ intervention into the operations of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander will be considered. Kaupthing Bank contends that the actions of the UK authorities were unjust and illegal.
Kaupthing Bank’s resolution committee welcomes the court’s decision and hopes that promised financial support will be forthcoming from the Icelandic Government to ensure that legal proceedings can be continued. Kaupthing Bank’s resolution committee also wishes to underline that the court’s decision in no way indicates what the final outcome of this case will be.
I suspect the UK authorities’ action will be deemed lawful in the circumstances, but civil compensation will nonetheless be due. So, the UK government can declare it acted legally and the Icelandic government can declare it obtained compensation. Win-win, except for that ridiculous anti-terrorism label…
Hardly win-win if the British taxpayer has to suffer yet more losses paying ‘compensation’. I expect the U.K. goverment to fight this tooth and nail. Regarding labels, the bill used was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. What Icelanders don’t seem to realise is that Britain was never saying your government were terrorists, just criminals.
Icelandic in most people view their politicians are economic crooks so I support the British government to apply the terrorist label to the country until they pay back foreigners their money call china to help iceland and become a colony of china use the chinese language so you can save on your viking education of all play and no work attitude.
I suspect that compensation from the UK govt. may become due if Kaupthing can prove it was a going concern at the time the UK acted.
That is an interesting question.
Is first stage of getting know truth of where this order to seize Kauthping Singer Frieldnader was based on.
This judicial review not allowed for Northern Rock case so think burecrats and law lords assigned know there is smellyness here in actions Brown Darling.
But thats why there are judges — to investigate this things impartialy — and expose bad actions.
Other good conversation about this subject start here
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/16/kaupthing-sweden-sold-to-finns/#comment-65175
NOW PEOPLE HAVE DOUBTS, BUT AFTER THEY FINISH THIS THEY WON´T!!
THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE UK GOV. TO SHOW THEY DID THE RIGHT THING…
good article, thanks for this useful info, I have dug and stumbled this article. I will keep visiting for more useful information.
At last, Brown and Darling will be exposed as the idiots they are. Yes they acted in goodfaith to protect the British tax payer but they did so in a knee jerk way without thinking of the consequences – notably the collapse of KS&F and in particularly the collapse of KS&F Isle of Man which left thousands of British expats such as myself without their entire lifesavings. The wheels of justice move slowly but the beauty of the British system is that they do move and usually justice prevails.
Andy KJ said:
“I suspect that compensation from the UK govt. may become due if Kaupthing can prove it was a going concern at the time the UK acted.”
Of course they weren’t a going concern. Very few of the far more conservative banks around the world were/are “going concern’s”. Iceland’s banks were FAR more reckless any other banks in the world and they had nobody to bail them out if things went bad. Iceland refused to build up foreign reserves or build up its depositors protection scheme (as they were required to as part of the license to operate in NL).
Remember they were asked for £200million from the UK so that the depositors could be protected and the bank saved.. that was beyond the banks or Icelandic government ability to provide.
A bank unable to raise £200million is obviously unable to raise the Billions per year that it needed to just to replace existing borrowings and continue to operate.
Simon said:
“At last, Brown and Darling will be exposed as the idiots they are.”
No, the law will back the FSA for shutting the Icelandic banks down.
You, sir, are an idiot for leaving your life savings in the most unstable, over leveraged banking system in the world, in a country with no depositors protection system, during the worst banking crisis in history.
How stupid is that?
Andy said:
“Regarding labels, the bill used was the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. What Icelanders don’t seem to realise is that Britain was never saying your government were terrorists, just criminals.”
There is a judicial process to determine criminal responsibility
It looks like enacting the terrorism act allowed the UK Government to bi pass the legal procedure. When it enacts the terrorism act then it determines that there is a terrorist risk.
Can you have it both ways? use a terrorism act to bi pass legal procedure yet claim judicial process has been folowed to determine guilt?
I think not.
Peter – London said:
“No, the law will back the FSA for shutting the Icelandic banks down.”
Which part of the law will back the UK authorities? What is their legal justification?
Are you aware of the jist of the legal argument which will be used by Kaupthing’s lawyers?
Do you understand the legalities of this case?
On Mar 17, 2009, Knowless said:
“There is a judicial process to determine criminal responsibility
It looks like enacting the terrorism act allowed the UK Government to bi pass the legal procedure.”
You, like most Icelanders, seem utterly unable to understand that the bill was for use against any financial or security threat against the UK. The Government used its as it was designated for -against criminals committing economic crimes. It wasn’t bi-passing the legal procedure – it WAS the legal procedure.
On Mar 17, 2009, Knowless said:
“Which part of the law will back the UK authorities? What is their legal justification?”
Simple, the FSA determined the Icelandic banks were insolvent. There is NO evidence, absolutely none, that the Icelandic banks were solvent. They didn’t have £200million to rub together never mind the billions that were known and required to be paid back over the following months.
Even the last Icelandic bank has crashed – un-assisted from the UK. The economic crash has only just begun and the biggest debtors of Icelandic banks have crashed too. Everything points to the Icelandic banks and the central bank behind it to be insolvent, proof that the FSA go it right.
Peter – London said:
“You, like most Icelanders, seem utterly unable to understand that the bill was for use against any financial or security threat against the UK”
Quite an astonishing arrogant blunderbuss statement, even by your standards ;)
I understand the UK terrorist laws relatively well, since the Prevention Of Terrorist Act in the early 70´s
The UK Gov was not as confused as you evidently are.
Lets examine UK government statements which clearly prove that the Act was designed for terrorist and not economic suspect
15/08/2001 (Home Secretary) David Blunkett’s explanation in the House Of parliament of the asset-freezing powers was quite clear
“The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists”.
In answer to the question why there was no explicit reference to terrorism in the drafting of the clause.?
“it is not possible to separate out the matters in a practical sense because the other crimes are the source of revenue for terrorists”.
“The Government do not believe that it is possible to define terrorism in a way that would distinguish it from activities related to it”
Peter – London said:
“It wasn’t bi-passing the legal procedure – it WAS the legal procedure”.
Lets put it in a another way for you to understand.
The Terrorism Act bipasses normal legal procedures of investigation, detention and court process. In other words, if one is suspected/charged with even serious crimes of rape/murder they are entitled to a legal process. If one is “suspected” of a terrorist connection then they can be brought into a process which bipasses the standard legal process to deal with criminality.
Peter – London said: “The Government used its as it was designated for -against criminals committing economic crimes”
So the UK Government lied through their teeth day after day in Parliament when they stated time after time that the Terrorism act was for Terrorist activity?
>So the UK Government lied through their teeth day after day in Parliament when they stated time after time that the Terrorism act was for Terrorist activity?
They may well have. That wouldn’t change the fact that the bill also covered other contingencies.
There’s a nice entry in Wiki on this. Note that the Freezing Orders part was in existence, in one form or another, before any of the modern terrorist stuff.
Also, follow the 5th cite to the House of Lords discussion, where it’s pretty clear that no one tried to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes about the intent of part 2. And the Bill was passed without any ammendment to include “involving terrorism” there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism,_Crime_and_Security_Act_2001#Usage_against_Iceland
haha. Looks like I forgot to change my name after replying to that guy from Bangalore :D .
Peter.
There is NO evidence, absolutely none, that the British Economy is solvent.
So should Gordon Brown order to arrest himself? I think he should. As the only reason behind the actions against Icelandic banks was to cover-up, smoke-screen his own blunders over economy handling. And the only two reasons for using Terrorist Act was inability to use ANY LEGAL tools in the case – cause Icelandic banks didn’t break any laws – and confidence that Iceland couldn’t retaliate with nukes…
Then FSA and H.M. Government should be arrested in the first place. ;-)
PS. I doubt that Kaupthing lawyers are so stupid to start the procedure without good reasons.
Without getting into the rest of your post Alexander, you may want to consider what would happen to Iceland if your statements about the UK and the EU are in fact correct.
I know misery loves company but, even if everyone defaults on everything, Iceland needs to export to live anything other than a subsistence life.
I just said – there are no evidence. Exactly in the same way as Peter claimed. ;-)
This is the least thing I’m worried about. I think you basic mistake is – you mixed current financial system and real economy. Real economy won’t default – in fact this is the only factor that keeps our civilization to run.
There are around 40,000,000 new people on the planet every year. They need food, shelter etc. So someone will buy not Icelandic fish but even fish bones ;-) And if General Electric defaults and stop supplying Iceland with generators – someone will do this as this someone also need to export to live…
And just think about thousands of poor Danish people who export stuff to Iceland to live good life back in Denmark. They might be replaced by Chinese who are eager to live good life as well… 8-)
So don’t worry. As soon as we – I mean the modern world – will build new functioning financial system everything gonna be alright.
And if we don’t – life in Iceland might be much less miserable than in UK.
The takeover of Singer og Friedlander was probably illegal, also the selling of SF property by Financial Services Authority’s
Kb was obviously not a threat to UK financial system, it was just a mistake made by a couple of morons, there is no point in arguing over this,
this will take a few years to win and by then UK may be in a worse state then we are in,
its time for all Britts to realize that Brown and your entire gov are idiots, compleatly incompotent and extreamly destructive,
believe it or not you have exactly the same problems as we have,
get your pots pans and signs and start protesting before the damage caused by those idiots becomes irreperable.
>Iceland’s banks were FAR more reckless any other banks in the world and they had nobody to bail them out if things went bad.
Of course they werent MORE reckless. By standards of the time Icelandic banker were careful in what they invested in — good assets only.
When banks not lend to each other — at all — which happen after Lehmans went down Sept 30th of course their model of doing business meant they could not raise new loans and stop dead in end.
And thank the gods that there wasn’t Iceland tax payer money given to bail them out.
Unlike USA and UK there will not be more borrowing like again here — not becuase of credit ratings but becos can assure you Icelandic bank shareholders will never let this kind of borrowing happen again. And Icelandic people at large will not either.
But bare that in mind that UBS, big bank in Europe and nearly every one USA bank invest in toxic security. Iceland banks do no such thing. All good assets.
>Remember they were asked for £200million from the UK so that the depositors could be protected and the bank saved.. that was beyond the banks or Icelandic government ability to provide.
Dont seem bother about fact Peter.
At last minute (last weekend literal) FSA agreed GBP 200 million to take Landsbanki branch into English jursidiction.
But same weekend EUR 500 million loan already given to Kaupthing bank by Iceland Central Bank. So no monies to lend Landsbanki.
Then we get this seizing order against Kuapthing Singer Frieldland on same day as UK Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 used against Landsbanki london bank Heritible and its funds there UK.
http://www.indefence.is/News/News/~/NewsId/13
But no antiterrorist law used against Kauthping Singer Frieldander. Instead it is siezing under Northern Rock Act which is what thies high court review about.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/16/kaupthing-sweden-sold-to-finns/#comment-65175
But you know it Peter, I see you post here before and others reply correct you and still you say same stuff — stuff not true. Stuff not got fact behind it. Just flapping jaw.
>But bare that in mind that UBS, big bank in Europe and nearly every one USA bank invest in toxic security. Iceland banks do no such thing. All good assets.
I’m not convinced that’s been proven to be true; quite the opposite actually. Icelandic banks may well have avoided getting involved in sub prime abroad, but a chunk of their assets seem to be crap like junk loans to inflate share prices.
Just look at the ISK write-offs within the new banks.
>And thank the gods that there wasn’t Iceland tax payer money given to bail them out.
Bend over, ’cause Byr’s coming to do just that.
http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16567&ew_0_a_id=321414
Amazing how the figure it needs, ISK 10.6b, is pretty much what the owners plundered from its reserves only last year.
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2009/02/the-biggest-bank-robbery-in-icelands-history.html
>At last minute (last weekend literal) FSA agreed GBP 200 million to take Landsbanki branch into English jursidiction.
The FSA have denied this. Not saying it’s untrue, but we only have that Icelandic businessman’s word for it ATM.
Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller said
On the UK Gov lying through their teeth in parliament about the Terrorism Act in 2001
“They may well have . That wouldn’t change the fact that the bill also covered other contingencies.”
If that is a fact then you state that the UK gov at the time of passing the Terrorism act through parliament were absolute and total hypocrites. That they lied with a persistence to the Parliament and to the people of Britain. They denied time after time that this Terrorism Act was designed for anybody other than terrorist suspects.
Now that hypocrisy is accepted by posters such as yourself and Peter from London, as being normal, so normal as to that you can come on a public discussion board and state that the real intention of the UK Gov. in 2001 was to include situations like Landsbanki into the
Terrorism Act.
Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller said ”
Also, follow the 5th cite to the House of Lords discussion, where it’s pretty clear that no one tried to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes about the intent of part 2. And the Bill was passed without any ammendment to include “involving terrorism” there.”
You should read that debate in the HOL a good deal more closely.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2001/nov/28/anti-terrorism-crime-and-security-bill-1#S5LV0629P0-01144
What has the debate in the House of Lords got to do with the debate in the House of Parliament where the British Gov. denied emphatically and repeatedly that this Terrorism act was designed for anybody other than terrorists.
>What has the debate in the House of Lords got to do with the debate in the House of Parliament
Well, you’re the one who saying that the government denied that the Bill covered non-Terrorist situations. I’m not going to do your work for you, so if you want to link to evidence for that claim then great. If not, it’s just that – an unsubstantiated claim.
What I was saying was that it’s non-terrorist nature was discussed in the HoL, which is part of the Houses of Parliament (which you seem to be confusing with the House of Commons). An ammendment was proposed to restrict it to terrorist situations only. That ammendment was not made.
So, in the absence of any evidence from you, I’d contend that everyone knew full well what the Bill covered. I’m happy to reread that debate, but what am I meant to be looking for? Is it this?
[quote]
“That expression is extraordinarily wide. Perhaps I may give an example. A Japanese company is considering whether to build a new car manufacturing plant in the United Kingdom or in Switzerland. The Swiss Government offer the company a financial inducement to build its plant in Switzerland—something in the nature of, say, a tax holiday.
That is plainly action to the detriment of the United Kingdom economy. The result is that, at least in theory, the Treasury could make a freezing order stopping anyone in the United Kingdom, or United Kingdom nationals resident abroad, from making payments to the Swiss Government. Some people might say that that was quite right, but I am sure that it was not the intention. I want to probe why such a wide-ranging clause has been adopted.”
[/quote]
Whether it was the intention or not, if the Bill was passed unchanged then Lord Goodhart’s point stands – with this law you can do pretty much anything. Legally :) .
No, Knowless, they were not. Never were. It’s just called “Britain political culture” ;-) he-he
You see – everything is not what it is but what you call it. For your convenience. And in times when you have to save your ass – all methods are “legitimate”.
As Bromley86 put it nicely
PS. For quotes you should use “blockquote” and “arrows”{} (SHIFT + , and SHIFT + .)
>Whether it was the intention or not, if the Bill was passed unchanged then Lord Goodhart’s point stands – with this law you can do pretty much anything. Legally :) .
Hang head in shame that let your politician pass law like this.
This question Goodhart obvious answer then and now. So that can do whatever they like whenever like. That has word I think in English, tyranny.
This why legal advice WAS not to try and sue Brown-Darling government in UK court because even though this law against all that is reasonable it is passed as UK law.
Higher court like EU court human rights which have jurisdiction might have other idea about law.
That people have go above UK Parliament like this for basic idea of equity end fairness very sad — maybe UK does need EU above them if laws like this passed and not challenge.
But review of Kaupthing Singer Friendland seize order and law Northern Rock Act more possible as has been shown by decision this news story about.
>>At last minute (last weekend literal) FSA agreed GBP 200 million to take Landsbanki branch into English jursidiction.
>The FSA have denied this.
Where Darling and Treasury deny it? Not seen that.
I should say Treausry not FSA. But if you got FSA denying post too. I just not seen that.
Thanks Alexander. I knew my coding wouldn’t work but did it anyway for clarity. Let’s see if I can get yours to work :) .
I don’t think Darling has said anything himself, but an Icelandic journo wrote to the Treasury and the FSA:
http://lillo.blog.is/blog/lillo/entry/818142/
Fisy. Regarding your tyranny thing, what can I say? Parliament still has to ratify actions like this (which they have done), so there is oversight. Can you cite an example of a freezing order, other than the Landsbanki case, where you consider it to have been misused?
This case occurred after a banking collapse when there was believed to be a real threat of capital being withdrawn from the UK branch after the company had been effectively (but not actually) declared insolvent (or nationalised, take your pick).
If that’s tyranny, it’s a strange sort.
You talk of equity and fairness, but where was the equity in allowing Icelanders 100% access (and giving them a 100% guarantee), whilst locking out UK depositors and giving them no guarantee at all?
For more detail on the reasons for the Landsbanki Freezing Order, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtstatin/182/18210.htm
As you say, Kaupthing is a different matter.
Bromley86 said: “Well, you’re the one who saying that the government denied that the Bill covered non-Terrorist situations. I’m not going to do your work for you, so if you want to link to evidence for that claim then great. If not, it’s just that – an unsubstantiated claim.
So, in the absence of any evidence from you, I’d contend that everyone knew full well what the Bill covered.”
————————————-
What are you writing about absence of evidence from me?
The Government denied it time and time again in parliament and on tv interviews.
I gave clear quotes from the Home secretary in the House of Parliament during the debate in the HOP 15/08/2001 to support my claim.
Whether the act can legally be used against Kaupthing is another issue altogether (for the courts).
I was answering the claim that the Terorism act when it was drafted/brought into law was intended for use against any financial or security threat against the UK.
Here are the quotes again from
David Blunkett British Home Secretary 15/08/2001 in the House of Parliament debate on the Terrorism Act
“The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists”.
In answer to the question why there was no explicit reference to terrorism in the drafting of the clause.?
“it is not possible to separate out the matters in a practical sense because the other crimes are the source of revenue for terrorists”.
“The Government do not believe that it is possible to define terrorism in a way that would distinguish it from activities related to it”
Evidence is only really useful if you link to your source. Otherwise you can (a) just make it up or, (b) take it out of context, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, in this particular case, I can guarantee you that any questions that made it to the media (as distinct from discussions within Parliament or committees) related to issues like detention without trial and surveillance. The particlar Part of the Bill that we’re talking about was a non-issue, publicly, at the time. BTW, it still is over here.
I’m not disputing that even in Parliament 99% of the discussion was about terrorism – that was the prime purpose of the Bill. However it was not the *only* purpose and this was not concealed – it’s in the title! For example, from the HoL link previously:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/2001/nov/28/anti-terrorism-crime-and-security-bill-1#S5LV0629P0-01144
{trying a block quote]
>Whether the act can legally be used against Kaupthing is another issue altogether (for the courts).
Just spotted this. The anti-terrorism act was not used against Kaupthing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_(Special_Provisions)_Act_2008
Link to Blunketts spin
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81021-0002.htm
Bottom of page, the noble Baroness quotes the Government from the debate in the House of Parliament 7 years earlier.
“The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/01; col. 923.]
The debate can be followed to the next pages.
What is the definition of “specifically”? :)
It means that 7 years later you get these ‘know it alls’ with their brains over fried after swallowing a decade of Labour Gov spin, claiming that “of course Blunkett didn’t mean that the Terrorism act be specifically confined to Terrorist suspects, he really meant to say “unspecifically” and that of course the UK Government intended right from the very beginning that the Terrorism act be applied to all non terrorist threats”
“It´s just that they couldn’t say it out loud, because if they said it out loud then it would have got bogged down again in the Parliamentry system ” The liberals would have had a field day.”
8-)
OK. Try again. With Icelandic keyboard layout
look for the button left of Z. See it? With left and right “brackets”?
Use them around words “blockquote” at the beginning of quote and “/blockquote” at the end of quote. I can’t type these symbols as browser doesn’t show them here. But you can try (from browser commands) View – Page Source to see how it looks in plain HTML to understand.
To Bromley86 and Peter.
This discussion can go on and on but I have one question. Just simple, basic one.
Do you guys really believe in what bLair-Brown are saying when they are talking about threats towards UK? Actually about anything? ;-)
A link showing blockquote format:
http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp
>Link to Blunketts spin
I know what you’re trying to do, but it isn’t going to work. You know how these legalese situations work – if you quote one part of something without considering the whole you can easily make one thing seems another. In this case, you’re quoting someone who’s quoting someone – a good recipe for a misquote :) .
Your link does nothing to prove that anyone was trying to hide the true nature of the Bill. My link shows that, quite to the contrary, it was recognised at an early stage and well before it became law. It was intentional and replaced existing (non-terrorism related) legislation.
So I’ve shown that a valid UK law was, before it became a law, recognised to cover non-terrorist situations. It says that in both the title and the long title. Common sense tells us that Iceland (or more accurate Landsbanki and the Icelandic government *in its capacity as the controllers of Landsbanki*) was in no way a terrorist organisation. But still you persist in trying to label it as such?
Sure. Don’t you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm
That’s not to say that I sit here thinking about it, nor do I want to see “Orange threat level” on the information screen on my bus (I saw that in Florida in 2006). But the threat exists.
>I don’t think Darling has said anything himself, but an Icelandic journo wrote to the Treasury and the FSA:?http://lillo.blog.is/blog/lillo/entry/818142/
Missed this so thanks for link. It is nice try but targetted wrong. (They should af put up original scan FSA reply as well but likely they did get reply as say.)
So Brumly what do you think is the GBP 200 million liquidity that Darling refer to in the conversation with Árni . Do you think it refer to something else?
Problm of targetting is that of course such offer was not at stage that would be put down in writing. So asking for letter in that way is nice try but wrong approach. Civil servant reply on narrow grounds asked.
( This thing also show why letter so important and conversation not as important to letter witch is why you saying in case of letter about 94/19/EEC guaratees “They [letter] certainly do not carry any weight when compared to a statement in a conversation between the finance ministers of two countries.” your strange thing to say.)
Problem is that Hector Sants who involved in last minute attempt was not ask directly and not write question was asked. But it nice try. Iceland burecrats reply straight to this kind question. UK ones not, at same time not lying and by directly answering question asked.
UK Treasury reply “Since there was no understanding such as you describe, I can confirm that the Treasury does not hold any relevent information.”
Note that UK Treasury “has told me that its response does not apply to the FSA”.
Also note then that they FSA reply is “no such agreement was entered into”.
Not say, no such agreement was discussed, but that it was not entered into.
Not different in reply of FSA and Treasury. Wording of reply very careful.
Nice try it was. But this issue ongoing, so no worry that truth come out soon enuff.
>Just spotted this. The anti-terrorism act was not used against Kaupthing.
I seen you repliing other post going back early as October where you must read that freezing and seizing orders different laws.
Northern Rock Act known formal as Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008.
Kind it difficult beleave that you not know it by now.
They under Darling Brown instruction use anything get hands on. Any power they had.
And power they had are broad worded laws that give them power do what want when want for any reason they want.
Which exactly opposite of what laws presented as. That why allowing politicans pass laws like this so danergous.
>This case occurred after a banking collapse when there was believed to be a real threat of capital being withdrawn from the UK branch after the company had been effectively (but not actually) declared insolvent (or nationalised, take your pick).
If that’s tyranny, it’s a strange sort.
Kaupthing most particulrly unfair use. Which what court case going to show.
Case can be made about Landsbanki not solvent although tool used very bad and not acceptible because of impact being on terrorist list had on iceland for weeks an after. ( see above )
>You talk of equity and fairness, but where was the equity in allowing Icelanders 100% access (and giving them a 100% guarantee), whilst locking out UK depositors and giving them no guarantee at all?
Keep on repeat this nonsense when facts not with you get boring.
wont paste again why you are wrong again just link to posts we had about it
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/16/kaupthing-sweden-sold-to-finns/#comment-67865
IceSave depositors not just UK but in all places Holland as well not get monies for one day or less before Darling Brown act as they did. Why Holland authority not do same thing as Darling Brown?
It because they know that Icelander going to keep to their words even if not like it.
Brown Darling know they created problem by not offering GBP 200 million offer early enough and not doing anthging of counsels investing in bonds.
So that why. But Kautphing act hard not to see at anthing but revenge to kick Icelandic system when it down and keep it down so Darling and Brown can be seen as saviours by doing something they knew they have to do anyway ( guarantee depoits) but with good political excuse.
Again ask, my HOlland authorities treat matter different and civilized. Why not Darling Brown do it same civliezed way? Why not ask that question?
Fisy. I’m trying a new format to save on blockquoting.
**£200m** To be honest, I don’t know what this is. If we just looked at what Darling says in the transcript, the English used indicates that he’s obviously referring to a loan from someone like the Icelandic CB.
It is possible, but IMO extremely unlikely, that he was misremembering a brief about possible payment of £200m in exchange for placing Icesave under the FSCS. What he says is, again IMO, incompatible with him knowing about or remembering such a plan.
**Laws** I was replying to Knowless, who seemed to think that the ATCSA 2001 was used against Kaupthing. As you say, it wasn’t. Regarding your point about using any laws that they could, of course! In a “fair” world, they’d have done this even *without* a law in place. Just as the Icelandic government decided it needed to override normal bankruptcy rules to preserve the domestic banking system. Our respective governments are in place to safeguard our respective interests.
I’ve already addressed whether or not the people passing the law knew that it wasn’t just about terrorism.
**Boring Facts** They’re only boring because you can’t/won’t counter them :P .
**Netherlands** Perhaps they hadn’t had such an enlightening conversation as Darling had? Not that you accept it as enlightening. Don’t ask me though, ask David. He says he knows and, as you say, “Iceland burecrats reply straight to this kind question.” (You walked into that one :D )
Anyhoo, Niels might be able to shed some more light on what the Netherlands were thinking/doing Oct 6th-9th.
**£200m Offer** Let’s assume that that £200m claim is true. So now it’s everyone else’s fault that Iceland couldn’t or wouldn’t come up with the £200m? Typical. Have I once seen you post about Arni/David/Geir being a problem? Perhaps, but if so it’s buried under your posts where you accuse Brown/Darling of lying, revenge etc.
**Councils** I guarantee you that if the Government warned off coucils from depositing with Icelandic banks or buying their bonds, it would have become common knowledge. So as well as having to secure financing to cover that loss of deposits, the banks would have faced a full retail run. And I also guarantee you that you’d be here posting that the British government brought down Iceland’s banks. Illegally. As I understand it, you’d be correct.
**Kaupthing** Revenge? Darling and Brown had already, in your view, done their bit as saviours by being “tough” over Icesave. Why complicate it?
BTW, you keep talking about the Netherlands as being civilised, but they were just as vocal in blocking the Iceland IMF loan as the UK. In fact, I seem to remember that they were more publicly honest than either the UK or Germany. And this was a long time after it was announced they’d reached an agreement with your government over Icesave. So I think it’s fair to say that that agreement was in question (that’s a nice way of saying it fell through, the Icelandic government reneged, etc.). Perhaps they didn’t have a golden written communication?
@Fisy, Bromley
Personally I do not think that we are getting much further in this debate since there seem to be 2 sides who will stick to their views, regardless the argumentation of the other side.
On the one hand there are those who believe the UK acted correctly,giving the icelandic banks what they deserved and on the other hand there are those who feel that it was all a big crime / conspiracy in order to bring Iceland down.
As the Netherlands compared to the UK I think these are different situations. Icesave in NL was operating as a branch of Landsbanki in Iceland. There was no dutch branch of Kaupthing like in the UK. In other words, there were no icelandic assets to seize in NL!
If there had been such assets, it is well possible that dutch authorities would have acted in a similar manner.
In fact 8th of october there was a ‘seizure’ of Icesave assets but since there were (practically) no assets in NL this was just a formality:
http://www.rtl.nl/(/financien/rtlz/nieuws/)/components/financien/rtlz/2008/weken_2008/41/1008_0830_beslag_op_icesave.xml
(sorry dutch only; google translate will get you some way and if you want I can translate some parts)
In fact, the equipment of the office which Icesave had maintained in NL were auctioned publicly.
http://www.troostwijkauctions.com/NL/Veiling/12153/LANDSBANKI_ISLAND_HF_(hodn_ICESAVE).aspx
People managed to score some nice laptops here btw :-)
What mostly angered the dutch public was the arrogance of Haarde who said that british claims had priority and that dutch Icesave victims basically could scr@w themselves:
http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/article1075780.ece/Premier_IJsland_tot_Nederlanders_sorry
crucial passage:
”
After the British government had threatened a lawsuit, Icelandic Prime Minister Geir Haarde said later in the day that the British claims have priority. The Prime Minister told there were no discussions with the Dutch authorities. When asked what Dutch Icesave savers to-do, Haard replied: “I’m very sorry for them.”
”
Ironically enough this priority to the UK led to the ominous conversation between Mathiesen and Darling in which Mathiesen made the great mistake to give the impression that Iceland would not guarantee deposits of foreign customers.
Bizarely enough Fisy some time ago showed a link which suggests that Iceland was willing to meet its obligations. In spite of this Mathiesen failed to reassure Darling and probably this conversation was the direct cause for the seizure.
This is why I still stand by my conclusion from a previous post that Mathiesen proved to be incompetent as a minister of finance.
The arrogant attitude of Haarde at the beginning of the crisis led to public anger in NL and minister of finance Wouter Bos announced he would do everything to get the money back.
This is also a reason why I believe that dutch authorities could have done something similar to Brown/Darling.
After NL and UK blocked the IMF loan the icelandic gov probably realized that their handling of the crisis had been incomplete and immediately Mathiesen was ordered to negotiate with Bos. Now I am not a fan of Bos but he is a good negotiator who worked as an executive with Shell for a long time. Their conversation must have been unpleasant for Mathiesen as he made a public apology to the dutch press during which he also made a very weak impression (“Please, Bos must call me, he can call me night and day, we NEED the imf loan”)
http://www.icesafeme.nl/phpbb/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wouter_Bos
Niels and Bromley86
>>“Personally I do not think that we are getting much further in this debate since there seem to be 2 sides who will stick to their views, regardless the argumentation of the other side.”
Niels – I agree with you. Yourself and Bromley86 – are stalwarts, in the face of an ‘Iceland Auber Allis’ mentality, articulated, by hopefully – a vociferous minority of Icelandic residents.
Bromley86 states “misery loves company”, and this is evident in posts longing for the downfall of other countries. This is amusing given Julia Set’s comment –
>>“Iceland’s history is a thousand years of splendid isolation, whereas Europe’s history is one of cross-border trade and travel.”
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/17/iceland-time-to-reconsider-national-approach/
Iceland (or, perhaps, to be fair – a contingent posting here), now seem to seek fellow victims of adversity – in an endeavour to avoid the distinction of the country that went ‘bust’ and ‘ratted’ on its obligations.
Niels – I recall you stating that you would welcome the legal challenge. I also – as Fisy says this forum is now no more than ‘jaw flapping’ on this matter.
If Icelanders cannot succeed in a UK Court, given ‘terrorist’ challenges –
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5934380.ece
Then perhaps, they will concede?
Correction – Fisy does not refer to items within this forum as ‘jaw flapping’ – he/she does so – in response to adverse and individual opinion to his/hers.
Apologies.
http://indefence.is/News/News/~/NewsId/13
The evidence of what the UK gov really did.
Someone was talking about the Icelandic CB not being able to provide 200 million pound…
They decided not to back up Landsbanki, they said Landsbanki was a lost cause.
They backed up Kaupthing for I think 400 millions …
nota bene – the bank the UK government took down…
We hear the UK cry about taxpayers money going into this…
IT´S A LOAN – WE´LL HAVE TO PAY IT BACK…
You 8 million people are whiny as hell…
we have 170.000 people “working” (today 10% unemployment) so today it´s more like 153.000
Those people will pay the debt you are whining about.
Someone said called us vikings lazy or not working..
Icelanders work on average the one of the longest workweek in the EU but we don´t produce just as much pr. hour as many other nations (close though).
The media in the UK is worse than here in Iceland, they don´t tell you anything … they just give you disaster and shock “shock and awwww” Danny Crane media …
Our media sucks to but not as much…
> Kjartan
I doubt that Icelanders needs to pay back the “Icelandic debt”. The whole world is trying to find a new financial, political systems. We all need to stick our fingers in the earth – we just can´t do as we did anymore.
There are much worse places than Iceland these days.
UK was also near collaps in october last year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127278/Revealed-Day-banks-just-hours-collapse.html
The situation in Iceland banks did not help on that.
The political question Iceland has been asked to is to participate to help finding hidden money – which as I see there now are a full will to do. Much of it thanks to those active protesters.
The other Nordic countries and others have prepared most of the route. Tax paradices have made agreements to open their doors/books – Switzerland, Luxenbourg, Lichtenstein, Bermuda, Cayman… More will come.
Norway also had Iceland banks – here is the homepage of Kaupthing – http://www.kaupthing.no – try to get some money/assets out of it. The bank was locked 12th of October because Norwegian authorities did not belive that the bank was able to pay out money. All people got their money – the case was closed without any discussion.
The main problem in the world is not at all in Iceland.
I think there will come new money and investments to Iceland. One very exciting project is the deep drilling project http://www.iddp.is/
Just found Physchim62′s blog, and he’s fleshed out the £200m issue. Looks like Bjorgolfur was lying and it related purely to a transfer to the UK branch to cover the run.
http://minipuffin.blogspot.com/2009/04/200-million-question.html
The sooner the UK Government is brought to book over this the better.
Alistair LIAR Darling threw thousands of his own British citizens into dispair and destitution when he decided to pretend to be God.
I am British and ashamed to be so. The sooner the morally corrupt and lying Uk Government is brought to book the better. They destroyed my family and over 30 years of savings. They can rot in hell.
These people who said the UK Government did the right thing are so badly mistaken it beggars belief.
By all means be ****** at the UK government “Admin”, but that site you’ve created is misinformation and hyperbole. That helps no one.
While it is no surprise, it is not hyperbole to claim Darling is a liar in this matter, especially when the proof is provided.
Does the site help is another question.
http://www.theukgovernment.com/what-happened
Is there a legal argument?
Is there another argument?
or is this a site that popped up after every other avenue of approach was rejected?
Unfortunately, unlike the bankrupt Dunfermline Building Society, the Isle of Man is not in Gordon Browns constituency,
Get ready for more flapping of jaw from Peter – London.
( Terry to be fair it is only he that I refer to with flapping of jaw. Even if I disagree with others least they try and make argument based onfact. Peter – London does not exact opposite. )
When we will hear judiciail review of Northern Rock Act known formal as Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 in this case then Darling will get some uncomfortable questioning by at least UK MPs.
Yes, Darling and Brown behaved with extreme bad faith and this actions against KSF and KSFIOM in particular stink to high heaven.
Best site on subject of KSFIOM matter and GBP 550 millions taken by FSA on Daring’s instruction from KSIOM is still
http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/
>While it is no surprise, it is not hyperbole to claim Darling is a liar in this matter, especially when the proof is provided.
Perhaps, but “financial genocide” is a *little* over the top. Funnily enough, the proof is missing from the page, although it is linked to. It still amazes me that anyone can read that transcript as giving a guarantee, but to each their own.
On the page you link to, the date of the action, Darling’s title, who undertook the action, the type of action and the company involved are all incorrect. And that’s just the first sentence.
On Jul 29, 2009, Knowless said:
“Unfortunately, unlike the bankrupt Dunfermline Building Society, the Isle of Man is not in Gordon Browns constituency”
No, it wouldn’t be would it?
As IoM is not in the UK.
As IoM is not in the EU.
As IoM is not regulated by the UK authorities.
UPDATE.
It hasn’t made it onto Icenews yet, but the case was decided yesterday in favour of the UK Treasury:
http://www.kaupthing.com/Pages/4006?NewsID=4241
The opinion seems to have been a slightly stronger than that Resolution Committee statement would indicate:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091020-713003.html
And, regarding sealed court papers:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9900aacc-bda1-11de-9f6a-00144feab49a.html