Removal of material from website - Senator E.P. Vibert

STATES OF JERSEY

r

REMOVAL OF MATERIAL FROM WEBSITE: SENATOR E.P. VIBERT

Lodged au Greffe on 22nd March 2005 by the Economic Development Committee

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

w h e r eas the draft Code of Conduct for States members (P.33/2003) approved by the Assembly on 29th

April 2003 provides that Members should at all times treat other members, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process', to request Senator E.P. Vibert –

(1  ) to observe the requirements of the draft Code of Conduct in respect of any material placed on

websites controlled by him, and in particular –

(a ) t o re move from www.jerseyfsc.com and any other website controlled by him the current

unsubstantiated statements relating to the Director General and Deputy Director General of the Jersey Financial Services Commission as detailed in Appendix  1 of the report dated 22nd March 2005 within 48  hours of this proposition being adopted by the States Assembly;

(b ) t o r e frain from using www.jerseyfsc.com and any other website under his control to make

allegations relating to the Director General and Deputy Director General of the Jersey Financial Services Commission and any other public officer without first raising and substantiating such allegations through the appropriate channels that are available to him and any other States Member;

( 2 ) to refrain, while he is a member of the States, from using www.jerseyfsc.com and any other

website under his control which is capable of being confused with the website operated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT

1. I n t roduction

This Report and Proposition is brought to ask Members to consider whether material on various websites owned or controlled by Senator E.P. Vibert , and relating in particular to the Jersey Financial Services Commission and its officers for whom the Committee has political responsibility, conforms to the requirements of the draft Code of Conduct for States Members approved by the States on 29th April 2003. It explains the background to such material  and  questions  whether  it  is  appropriate  in  certain  circumstances  for  such  material  to  be  used  for continuing publication and in other respects whether a Member of the States, having regard to the draft Code, should be associated with such websites.

2. B a c kground

In December 2004, Senator Vibert acquired two websites, www.jerseyfsc.com and www.jfsc.com .

Much of the background to the acquisition of the websites, as set out in this Report, is based on a summary of the findings of the Royal Court expressed in its judgment of 6th January 2005 in the matter of an application by the then owner of the sites for a judicial review. This judgment is a matter of public record.

The websites first came to prominence in November 2004. At that time these websites belonged to an employee of a local trust company operating in the Island. These websites published a number of allegations in respect of the Commission and officers of the Commission, most particularly the Director General of the Commission, Mr.  David Carse. Mr.  Carse asked that the websites be closed down, something the owner refused to do. Ther then followed correspondence between Mr.  Carse and the owner's employer, the effect of which was that, in the words of the Court –

" it  a p pears that the applicant [the owner] was given an ultimatum by [the employer]: if the websites were not closed down, his employment would be terminated."

The Court went on to consider the actions of the Commission in relation to the website and expressed the view that the website contained allegations that "were certainly scurrilous", that the Commission had a statutory duty "to protect and enhance the reputation and integrity of the Island in commercial and financial matters", and that Mr.  Carse had"acted with moderation and complete propriety" in seeking to have the website shut down.

The websites were not, however, shut down. They were re-opened on 12th January 2005, and each site now states that it is owned by Senator Vibert . On a related website, www.tedvibert.com, Senator Vibert sets out his view of the matter –

" B a c k in December 2004, I was told that the JFSC had put very tough – and in my view disgraceful – pressure on a local Trust company to force one of their employees to stop publishing a website (jfsc.com) on which information about financial scandals involving Jersey were published. The trust company involved had already been led a merry dance by JFSC officials and after four years, was still awaiting a full license."

Senator Vibert uses the opportunity to make value judgments in relation to the Commission's treatment of a trust company,  no  doubt  in  full  knowledge  that,  under  the  statutory  duties  of  confidentiality  imposed  upon  the Commission, it would be impossible for the Commission to respond to any such specific allegation. It should also be noted that through the continuing publication of the jfsc.com website Senator Vibert appears not to have regard for the verdict of the Royal Court, either in relation to the damage the website might cause to the reputation of the Island or the scurrilous' nature of its contents.

1. S t a tementsin relation to the DirectorGeneraland Deputy DirectorGeneral of theJersey Financial ServicesCommission

T h e most serious allegations made against the Director General of the Commission are in relation to

certain matters that arose while Mr. Carse was Deputy Chief Executive for the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Examples of the pages from the website www.jerseyfsc.com setting out these allegations are annexed in Appendix 1 of this report.

T h e chief allegation is made by innuendo. The site refers to a "report" that is actually an article in

BusinessWeek stating that a significant sum of money went missing from a Chinese bank between 1992 and 2001, and that some of the proceeds were found in Hong Kong. The bank in question was located in China, was not regulated by the Hong Kong authorities and yet the clear implication on the website is that Mr. Carse was dismissed from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority for perceived failures in his duties. Following a factual report in relation to Mr. Carse's decision to leave the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the following comment is made –

" N o w t o m e this looks suspicious. A report criticising the ineptitude of certain people in their job the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is published in 2002. Then the top 3 people of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority "Resign" at the end of 2002. Hmmm?"

M r . Carse retired from the Authority in the normal course after 12  years to return to the U.K. He enjoyed

distinguished career and was awarded the OBE and Hong Kong's Silver Bauhinia Star.

T h e c ontent of this website is, in part, puerile. For example, a letter from Joseph Yam, chief executive of

the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is introduced by a link which reads –

" L e tt e r R e f M r. C arse Letter from a Hong Kong regulator saying what a good boy he is."

T h is is a letter from an internationally respected regulator in which he describes Mr.  Carse as having had

"an impeccable career" and states that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority was extremely sorry to lose his services. It is treated as an opportunity to make a childish joke at the expense of Mr. Carse's name and is effectively dismissed without comment. There is no sense of objectivity in the presentation of material on this website: instead, it is simply a direct attack on a public officer.

It i s n ot difficult to imagine what view is taken of Jersey as a jurisdiction when a website in the name of a

Senator of the States is so disparaging not only of Mr.  Carse but also of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.

A f u rther example of the type of innuendo which permeates the sites operated by Senator Vibert is the

following –

" w  e a r e a ls o receiving information about Mr. David Carse from Hong Kong, from the people he regulated. It seems that the Hong Kong industry hold as much regard for David Carse as the Jersey industry holds for Helen Hatton the Deputy Director General."

A g a i n, without evidence or supporting material, it is apparent that the statement can be viewed as no more

than a combination of the author's malice and innuendo. The author if he was interested in producing a balanced view would have referred to an article published in Hong Kong in September 1997 headlined "why David Carse is banker of the year." To quote – "During his six years in Hong Kong he has managed to change people's perception of central bankers. He is not the hateful almighty type who imposes rule after rule to rein in an unscrupulously mercenary banking industry. If anything, he has become commercial bankers' friendly alter-ego ready to listen to their grievances and always vigilant to caution them against possible missteps. This does not mean he has loosened the regulatory grip. On the contrary, the much improved regulatory framework, much of this the result of his own work, has greatly improved confidence domestically and internationally". The same could be said about his role in Jersey. Little wonder that Hong Kong were sorry to see him go, why he remains on an advisory committee for the People's Republic of China and why the international regulatory community say how fortunate Jersey is to have his services.

T h e c omments in relation to the Deputy Director-General, Mrs.  Hatton, have been particularly unpleasant

and inappropriate. Many of the comments on Senator Vibert 's site were extremely offensive but it was only when the JEP drew attention to the content of the website, a website over which the Senator has complete editorial control, was the offensive material removed. This should not disguise the fact that a website owned by a States Member was and continues to be used to publish comments of a sexual nature in relation to a public servant. She is referred to, within the website, by phrases such as "dat ginger hottie" and "dat sultry temptress". The website has encouraged people to comment upon Mrs. Hatton, and offensive material was posted. It must, at the very least, have been a misjudgement on the part of Senator Vibert to allow and to continue to allow a situation to arise whereby he provides a public platform for such offensive material.

T h e other source of allegations against Mrs. Hatton concerns the circumstances under which she

purchased property in the Island. Mrs.  Hatton was employed by the Commission on a "(j)" category housing license. As is the usual case in such circumstances, she was unable to purchase a house in her own name and so purchased a house in the name of a company established by the Commission. Although the property is bought by an employer, the financial risk is transferred contractually to the employee, so that the employee pays the mortgage and the employee takes any profit or suffers any loss upon the sale of the property. This is perfectly legal and was carried out with the full knowledge and agreement of the Housing Committee. If this was not already known to Senator Vibert it would have been very easy for him to ascertain the facts from the Housing Department.

D e s p ite the transaction being one which has many counterparts in Jersey, a fact confirmed in writing by

the Housing Department, it is reported as follows on the website jfsc.com –

" N O W , w e have one of the highest paid employees of the commission who lived in the house wholly owned by the commission as a J Cat employee shortly after arriving in the Island in 1999. The commission obviously charged rent to the employee for the five years they lived there? For a house that size you would expect to be paying close to £2,000 a month, a minimum of £1,000. If the employee paid nothing, then have they advised the tax office that they have received money in kind? and who received the Money from the profit of the sale of the property? As the property was "Wholly owned by the JFSC", it cannot be been GIVEN to the employee in October 2003 can it? Does the tax office know?"

" I f th e e m p l oyer is going to state that they owned the house and the company was a way round owning it, then that is breaking the housing law and they should be brought to task along with whoever allowed this to happen (Commission?, Housing? Senators? etc.)"

A g a i n, the general approach can be seen. A small piece of information is used. An incorrect assumption is

made and a malicious conclusion is drawn to the effect that a criminal conspiracy was taking place in which the Commission, States Members and civil servants were all complicit. There was no attempt to offer the Commission the opportunity to present the truth with an obvious conclusion to draw that the website has little interest in the truth which might be rather inconvenient for it. On this basis, the material appears as nothing other than a malicious attempt to spread, by innuendo and supposition, misinformation about a person to whom the author has taken exception.

It sh o uld also be noted that both the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General of the Financial

Services Commission have written to Senator Vibert to challenge the unfounded allegations against them. These letters are contained in Appendix  2 and include supporting evidence to demonstrate the unfounded nature of the allegations. The letters have been ignored by Senator Vibert and contributors to the websites controlled by him.

2. T h e useofdomainnames

T h e a ddress of the 2 websites acquired by Senator Vibert ,www.jerseyfsc.com and www.jfsc.com is very close to the address of the website of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, which is www.jfsc.org.

The only reason for websites to have these particular addresses, other than coincidence, must be the

prospect of attracting internet users who were seeking the website of the Financial Services Commission.

It s h o uld be noted that Senator Vibert already has a website where his views are made clear to those who

want to read them. It is not apparent why he needs 2 more websites in which he can express his views.

T h e u se of websites for political ends is likely to become increasingly common. The Assembly is asked to

consider whether it is appropriate for a Member to own a website which is certainly capable of being confused with the name of an entity with which that Member has no connection but whose principal purpose appears to be the aim of attacking the latter. If Members do find it acceptable for any other Member to use such websites in the specific case of the Commission, should that Member alternatively be permitted to use a website that is capable of being confused with the name of a private business, a private individual, another States Member – with the view solely to attack and discredit that person? To deny this possibility would not be an attack on anyone's freedom of speech. However, in the interests of the integrity of this Assembly it is surely important to affirm that a Member may not use websites in a deceitful manner.

S e n a tor Vibert sets out a defence on his website to the use of the domain name "jerseyfsc.com" and

"jfsc.com". That defence reads –

" I t i s c l ea r that the JFSC failed to register a whole series of domain sites involved around the letters jerseyfsc or jfsc. If it wished no one else to use these initials they should have registered them."

It m i ght be expected, if the Senator had the wider interests of the Island at heart, that having found that

this  domain  name  was  available  he  would  have  joined  with  the  Financial  Services  Commission  in ensuring that the names were acquired and protected from misuse.

It sh o uld be noted that while the Senator is unconcerned that the use of the jerseyfsc and jfsc names are

likely to cause confusion among those seeking the Commission's website, he ensures that before anybody can enter his own website, jerseyfsc.com, that person is required to agree to certain terms. One of those terms is that –

" T h e t e r m J erseyFSC is a service mark of jerseyfsc.com. The Site's logo, domains, service marks, and trademarks may not be used publicly except with the Site's written permission. We aggressively defend our intellectual property rights. Other manufacturers product and service names referenced herein may be trademarks and service marks of their respective companies and are the exclusive property of such respective owners. The Sites marks may not be used publicly except with express written permission from the Site, and may not be used in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among consumers, or in any manner that disparages or discredits the Site."

S e n at or Vibert clearly believes that while he is entitled to "aggressively defend" the name of his website in

order to ensure nobody establishes a similar website that may "disparage or discredit" his site, the Commission should not be accorded the same freedom.

3. P o i nts for consideration

1. I s su esoffree speech

T h e m atter before the States is indeed one relating to free speech. However, the context for this needs to

be clearly understood.

A l l c onscionable people understand the need to ensure room for free speech in a genuinely democratic

society. It is, in many respects, the very cornerstone itself of democratic society.

F r e e speech also works 2 ways. The right of individuals to raise matters, criticise others and provoke

debate and the right of individuals to enjoy freedom from malicious or damaging material, either express or implicit, about them and their integrity in the absence of clear evidence which might sustain the veracity and relevance of such material. The merits of such competing interests in specific cases may in most circumstances only be decided in the Courts but the principle of seeking a balance between these competing interests should inform this case, particularly where a defence the Senator constructs for his use of his website in the manner described is founded on his right to free speech.

A c c o rdingly, the principal issue for debate is not ultimately whether Senator Vibert has the right to

criticise individuals either on his website(s) or elsewhere. It is for debate, if such criticism takes the form of allegations, or allegations inferred or construed by innuendo, whether those criticisms and/or allegations should at the very least first be substantiated evidentially through channels available to the Senator before they are published in the public domain. This is all the more relevant when the author of such material in the public domain is a Senator of the States.

2. A v ailable channelsof information for verification ofmatters pertaining topublic officers

C h a n nels available to the Senator in this case to substantiate the assertions in the websites include but are

not restricted to –

• D ir e ct approach to the President of the Economic Development Committee, or the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission.

• W r it ten or Oral questions of the Economic Development Committee or any other Committee in the States Assembly.

• I n f o rmation sought from all other public bodies, including in this instance the Jersey Financial Services Commission, where an offer to meet Senator Vibert has been made by the Chairman of the Commission and remains open to discuss his specific concerns (see Appendix 3).

• O th e r public agencies such as, in this instance the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Jersey Housing Committee and Housing Department and, in respect of the recruitment process for David Carse, the Jersey Appointments Commission

• T h e States Assembly, acting as is the custom in camera' for discussions relating to recruitment matters and relating to the fitness of individuals to be appointed to public office or to continue to

hold public office.

N o n e of these channels have been used – certainly not to their full extent – in this instance.

A fu r ther interesting question is to compare the disclosure standard used for debate relating to recruitment

matters and relating to the fitness of individuals to be appointed to public office or to continue to hold public office within the States compared to that being deployed by the Senator through his website. In the former instance the person concerned by the debate has his or her confidentiality protected by the in camera' nature of discussions. Manifestly, website discussion of the same matters, particularly in the absence of any prior States Assembly discussion, does not sustain such confidentiality. This is an inconsistency that illustrates that the deployment of websites for the purposes used by Senator Vibert in this instance takes him beyond a standard of behaviour to which the States hold themselves. This again raises questions about the respect or lack of it for the standards of behaviour sought by the draft Code of Conduct as they apply in this case.

3. P o ssibledamage to the reputation of Jersey institutionsandtotheIsland

M u c h public debate to date has focused on whether the issues raised so publicly, either directly or implied, by the website material on the recruitment and suitability for office of the Director-General and on the

matter of the housing transaction entered into by the Deputy Director-General are likely to create reputational

damage to the Jersey Financial Services Commission, the Island's financial services industry and to the Island itself.

It i s r eported that Senator Vibert believes that if this episode damages the finance industry, then it must be

too fragile to be worth sustaining and defending.

T h is is not the point as any direct damage to the finance industry would probably show up in the long term

and would probably be difficult to track since it would be most likely to take the form of a lower level of new business than might otherwise have been gained due to falling confidence in Jersey and its stability and institutions which might be perceived by external clients and intermediaries or advisers. This is not the real risk, certainly not in the short term.

T h e p rimary risk is to the institution of the Jersey Financial Services Commission, the Island's financial

services regulator, and through that to the Island's reputation internationally as a well-regulated finance centre upon which the business of those in the finance industry greatly depend. The Island's current reputation in this respect is an excellent one which has been fought for and hard won with considerable effort particularly in recent years.

T h i s reputation was undoubtedly enhanced by the recruitment of David Carse to the post of Director-

General in late 2003 since he enjoys an excellent reputation in the eyes of other regulators and departments of government globally as well as in the eyes of industry practitioners both on the Island and externally. The reaction of these international observers to the publication by a Senator of the States of unfounded, allegations whether tacit or direct of Mr. Carse's unsuitability for office as Director-General can be expected to raise questions about the Island's political environment

I f, f aced with an unwarranted attack on his reputation and integrity the Director-General were to

foreshorten his term of office noting that he is already eligible for retirement then additionally the Island will have lost an excellent regulator of worldwide repute for no good reason, weakening the Commission and making the attraction of a successor of equivalent stature very much harder than it should need to be. This can hardly be of benefit to the Island particularly in its ability to discharge its international obligations and to regulate the financial services industry both of which are of primary necessity to Jersey's trading position, observance of high standards and economic development.

T h e l oss of the Director General, should it occur because of the unwarranted attacks on his reputation, can

be expected to be followed by the loss of the three eminent persons from outside the island who serve as Commissioners. They accepted the invitation to be involved because of the reputation of Jersey as a quality international finance centre and the presence of a Director General of the standing internationally of David Carse is material to this. The fact that his loss was brought about as a response to the content of a  web-site owned and controlled by  a  member  of  the island's  legislature  can  be  expected to  have significant repercussions for the view taken of the island, and particularly by those upon whom the island relies for business.

A s t h e Chairman of the Commission has said "If there are criticisms or allegations that need answering, let

them be dealt with in a fair, reasonable and objective way through an informed independent process with which the Commission would be more than happy to participate" – not in the manner perpetrated by Senator Vibert .

4. C  onformity to requirementsof the draftCodeofConduct

It is u seful to consider certain postings on the websites controlled by the Senator against the requirement

of the draft Code of Conduct for States Members. It will be recalled that these stipulate that members should "at all times treat other States Members, officers, and members of the public with respect and courtesy and without malice, notwithstanding the disagreements on issues and policy which are a normal part of the political process".

F ir s t, the wisdom of allowing the public to directly post on a website owned by a States Member must generally be questioned. As an example, on Tuesday 8th March 2005, the following was posted –

" T h e l a te s t letters against the website (or Ted Vibert ) have been from places such as Jersey Finance (who pay for Walker 's holidays to the far east – oops Business trips!)"

T h is is again an uncorroborated and incorrect statement. It is not made directly by Senator Vibert . Yet it is

given credence through being posted on a site that is backed by a States Member. Again, an unchecked allegation is made and those who are the subject of the allegation are given no opportunity to present the truth. Similar allegations are to be found in the same section of the site against private individuals, from employees and directors of private companies to the editor of the Jersey Evening Post.

A l l t hese entries are characterised by the same approach: allegations, innuendo and a failure to give the

subject of the comments an opportunity to respond.

A f in al entry worthy of mention is one posted on one of the sites which is linked to the jerseyfsc.com

website which purports to be a survey based on the question:

" W h o w o u ld make a better Chief Minister – Frank Walker or a packet of Durex? An objective analysis."

W  h ic h then goes on to compare and contrast Senator Walker with a packet of Durex and then invites

visitors to the site to vote for the alternatives. This Report simply leaves the question to States members whether the advertisement of such an item on a website hosted by a States Senator can do anything other than bring the States generally into disrepute and be anything other than at odds with the draft Code of Conduct?

W h  et her directly attributable to Senator Vibert himself or arising from other contributors to the site which

he is hosting, it seems clear that the whole edifice is doing little to contribute to a climate which treats third parties with respect and courtesy and without malice.

S e n a tor Vibert should therefore, be requested to review all material on his various websites, in whichever

section posted, to ensure conformity with the provisions of the States draft Code of Conduct or disassociate himself from the sites. It is particularly important to note that what is not being contested is the opportunity of individuals contributing to these sites to hold the views expressed but rather that they should not be, in effect, endorsed by a Senator of the States who owns the site on which they appear. The question is not whether the contributors adhere to the draft Code of Conduct for States members but whether the Senator does.

4. Co n clusion

The Committee believe that the actions of Senator E. Vibert are contrary to the standards of fairness and integrity that are required of States members and that he should abide by the Code of Conduct that was adopted by the States on 29th April 2003. It is accepted that the Privileges and Procedures Committee have not brought the Code into effect, however, the code was adopted by 34 votes to 10 (Senator E. Vibert voted"Pour") and is an endorsement of the standard of behaviour acceptable to the Assembly. It would be inconsistent to ignore the existence of the Code and the Committee believe it is reasonable for the Assembly to request that Senator E.   Vibert observe its requirements.

The Committee believe that the statements and allegations made against officers of the Jersey Financial Services Commission should be withdrawn because they are untrue and that he should refrain from making similar statements relating to any public officer on any web site operated by him without first substantiating them through the channels referred to above. Further, the Committee believe that the Senator should cease to operate the www.jerseyfsc.com and www.jfsc.com websites because they cause confusion with the web site operated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission and are clearly intended to disparage or discredit the Commission, which in turn is against the best interests of the Island.

The Committee upholds any individual's right to raise legitimate concerns relating to the work of politicians and public officers, however, this should be done in a responsible manner that upholds the integrity of the States Assembly and to persist in making allegations and innuendo knowing them to be false not only undermines the credibility of the Assembly, but undermines the confidence of the public and those employed either directly by the States or indirectly through associated bodies.

This proposition does not seek to silence criticism of politicians, as this is the nature of politics, it is intended to ensure that public officers are treated with respect and fairness and that the credibility and integrity of the Assembly is upheld.

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising out of this proposition.

22nd March 2005.

Items to be removed from the websites

Although all of the items set out above are objectionable, the following should, for the avoidance of doubt, be removed if the proposition is accepted. The numbering adopted in Appendix 1 is adopted here –

1. T h at section of the articlebeginning "The $480 Million missing from China/HongKong(2002)" and ending "Theyare unable to take on new clients, they have lost clients through not having a license". This section covers allegations concerningMr. Carse and separate allegations concerning howtheCommission acted in a specificcasewhich,underthe statutory duty of confidentiality, the Commissionis unable to respond to.
2. T h e entire article.
3. T h e entire article.
4. P ar ts of this article are inoffensive. There are sections, however, that make allegations in respect of specific cases to which the Commission cannot respond (e.g. in the opening paragraph).The section entitled "The JFSC failed to register" repeats many of the unsubstantiated allegations found on the jerseyfsc.com site and should be removed. These allegations are repeated in the section entitled "defamed" and should alsoberemoved.The entire section entitled "Mrs. Hatton" should beremoved.

Item 1 F r o m jerseyfsc.com

WWW.JERSEYFSC.COM

Last Updated 5th February 2005

Please read our Disclaimer

Back by Popular Demand JFSC's Hangman

The Story about this site is fairly complex and has been published in its entirity on the web site www.jfsc.com Please visit.

Please also check the Weblog, Guestbook, News area and the latest Public Challenge to Mr Carse and the Commission on www.jfsc.com

n order to allow those who cannot differentiate between copied text from other web sites and my own opinions, I have made my personal opinions PINK, questions will be Black. By the way this site is a

privately owned website.

he Billions Missing From Russia. Which company did they mention in Section 7? And More Info on the Billions (who was it? are they regulated? how?)

eported right round the world Would you like Egg with your face sir?

Now, why am I not surprised that the big players get regulated, even after this?

he Missing Millions from Poland. (who was it? are they regulated? how?) Could this be another Regulated Jersey Company? Read it and find out!

180 million Dollars slush fund. (millions through a Jersey Regulated Bank)

ore here

Anybody starting to see a pattern here?

3 Billion Sani Abacha Case with out of court settlement from Jersey as conclusion. Names withheld by JFSC - 6 institutions failed their controls but are still Regulated?

ore from Poland

An interview with one linked with the above

And Even More (This guy is a great investigative reporter) Also covers more on the missing millions.

rsey helps find Tax Evaders NOT - Human Rights in Jersey? We will have to see.

The judge has run into the same obstacle with the British isle of Jersey, located in the English

hannel, in his quest for information about the transfer of allegedly illegal commissions paid by the

ganisers of the 1992 World Expo in Seville.

rsey's Attorney General William Bailhache responded to Garzón's petition saying that the clients of BV Privanza Bank, a branch of BBVA based on the island, "have a legitimate right to privacy in their

fairs."

he Spanish judge reacted immediately, stating that this right "is essential, but cannot be of an bsolute and unconditional nature."

ut Bailhache argued that giving out information about the movement of money in Jersey would olate international conventions on human rights.

Garzón replied that the bank under investigation had distributed brochures to its potential clients

ecifically inviting them to use its services to escape taxes.

he Spanish magistrate plans to send a more detailed petition for information to Jersey this week. If he oes not obtain the necessary data, Spain's Anti- Corruption Prosecutor will denounce Jersey before

e International Financial Action Task Force (IFTF) on money laundering charges, legal sources told PS.

he $480 Million missing from China/hong kong (2002) Seems this was missed by our very own

atey Mr Carse.

David Carse (57) was Deputy Chief Executive for the Hong Kong Monetary Authority,which he joined in 1993. Prior to that he was Commissioner of Banking in Hong Kong from 1991. He became the director General of Jersey Financial Services Commission on Monday 3 November 2003."

"The Kaiping case casts a harsh light on Beijing and Hong Kong regulators, ho allowed the leakage of Bank of China funds to go on for almost a decade without detection. David .R. Carse, deputy chief of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, defends his agency, saying money

undering is a "global problem" "

Wow, that's some defense! Its a bit like saying "yes m'lud, my client did shoot a man dead, but people

et shot dead all over the world".

etter Ref Mr C arse Letter from a Hong Kong regulator saying what a good boy he is.

Certain Web Sites in the know say this:-

December 3, 2002

Hong Kong: Three quit Monetary Authority, triggering reshuffle - Hong Kong's longest-serving

anking regulator, David Carse, is bowing out. Two senior colleagues at the Hong Kong Monetary uthority are also resigning - setting the stage for a reshuffle at the top of the SAR's de facto central ank. Deputy chief executive Tony Latter will leave when his contract runs out on January 3. His duties ill be assumed by another deputy chief executive, Norman Chan Tak-lam. Marian Li Chan Sien-mun

ill leave the authority when her secondment as the chief executive of Exchange Fund Investment Ltd nds on January 31 when the company, set up to sell the government's stock portfolio, ceases

peration. Most attention, however, will be focused on the departure of Mr Carse, deputy chief

ecutive in charge of banking regulation when his contract expires in March. But he says he is willing stay on until a successor is chosen. Authority sources said it may ask Mr Carse to stay until the end next year to avoid the simultaneous departure of so many senior officials. Bankers are tipping Choi u-kwan, executive director of banking supervision and Mr Carse's deputy, to replace him. But there

 also speculation that Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung may appoint someone from utside the authority. "

Now to me this looks suspicious. A report criticising the ineptitude of certain people in their job

 the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is published in 2002. Then the top 3 people of the Hong ong Monetary Authority "Resign" at the end of 2002. Hmmm?

o as to not get people confused by asking if a car was introduced to a scandal, for the benefit of me I will just explain how this one works. But firstly, as with everything here and of course on other tes, do your own checks on the search engines, don't just rely on my searches. this case we are going to do a check on Google on the words "scandal car hong kong resign" and what do we find, we find that in Hong Kong you do not get sacked for doing wrong or creating a

andal, you just resign (Mr. Leung). Obviously too difficult for a certain crowd to understand.

Want to know what others think of Jersey. READ THIS. One voice, but I guarantee that this voice is

plicated in nearly every other corner of the world that deals with money.

Gary Godel, director of enforcement for the Jersey Financial Services Commission, refused to omment on the specifics of the Warr en Trustees allegations, although he did say that trust directors

ould be obligated to notify Jersey police if they were suspicious about the origins or nature of money assing through trust fund accounts."

We know of at least one company that did just this, informed the police that they suspected one of their ients. The company has as yet not been granted a license (Transitional) due mainly to advising the olice and the Jersey Financial Services Commission on the matter. They are unable to take on new ients, they have lost clients through not having a license.

Good Reading (from the former economic advisor to the States of Jersey)

What can be done to make Jerseys image better?

Having a regulator that answers to no one is not constructive to business. Requesting that complaints bout the Regulator are sent to and dealt with by the same Regulator is a farce. It's a bit like making a w that if you are punched in the face you have to write me a letter and I will decide if you can sue. I

en go round and punch everyone in the face. Not many are going to write a letter, and of those that do will just turn round and say that there is not enough evidence. I may let one minor one get through to ow I am impartial. Its the same with the "Commission", we need a body to regulate these people.

hey have too much power and are not answerable to anyone. If we regulate the regulator, we will be en in a more positive light by the rest of the world and that can do only good for the finance in

rsey.

Site Created Friday 22nd October 2004 Site re-activated Wednesday 12th January 2005

Please also Visit WWW.JFSC.COM WWW.TEDVIBERT.COM

Disclaimer

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!  

JFSC.COM

25th January 2005 Where's the Money?

I have been looking into the two companies "JFSC Property Holding No.1 Limited" and "JFSC Property Holding No.2 Limited" to try and understand how they DID NOT make any money in owning houses for a number of years (5 Years).

"JFSC Property Holding No.1 Limited" Registered on 29th June 1999 then went on to Purchase a house in Grouville at Le Clos Bertram for £350,000.00 a short while later. The Property was sold on 3rd October 2003 for £460,000.00 (includes £3,000 contents) making a profit of £110,000.00 yet the notes to the financial statements although confirming that the companies and therefore the properties were "wholly owned by the JFSC" (and an employee lived there throughout that time) state that the property was sold "at no profit or loss to the commission".

NOW, we have one of the highest paid employees of the commission who lived in the house wholly owned by the commission as a J Cat employee shortly after arriving in the Island in 1999. The commission obviously charged rent to the employee for the five years they lived there? For a house that size you would expect to be paying close to £2,000 a month, a minimum of £1,000. If the employee paid nothing, then have they advised the tax office that they have received money in kind? and who received the Money from the profit of the sale of the property? As the property was "Wholly owned by the JFSC", it cannot be been GIVEN to the employee in October 2003 can it? Does the tax office know?

If the employer is going to state that they owned the house and the company was a way round owning it, then that is breaking the housing law and they should be brought to task along with whoever allowed this to happen (Commission?, Housing? Senators? etc)

Whatever is the case, we now would like to see FULL accounts for both companies published on the jerseyfs.org website so that we can confirm or deny the unpublished information provided to us so far.

Back

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Item 4 F r o m tedvibert.com

2nd March 2005

Censored by the JEP

In order to advise people of the truth about the stories being put in the Jersey Evening Post I decided to publish at my own expense a full page information advert giving my side of the story (as it is easy for some to misslead the public when only one side of a story is heard)

Below is the text of that refused advert.

How it all began

Back in December 2004, I was told that the JFSC had put very tough - and in my view disgraceful - pressure on a local Trust company to force one of their employees to stop publishing a website (jfsc.com) on which information about financial scandals involving Jersey were published. The trust company involved had already been led a merry dance by JFSC officials and after four years, was still awaiting a full licence.

The pressure put on them by the JFSC to stop the site was huge. Their I.T. manager had discovered that no one had registered jerseyfsc.com, jerseyfsc.co.uk or jerseyfsc.net so he registered the sites and owned them. When it came to the notice of the JFSC certain information about Mr Carse was on these three websites they went into a terrible tizz. They called in their high powered lawyers, Mourant, who wrote to the I.T. manager in the following terms. "We act for the Jersey Financial Services Commission and have been instructed to take immediate action to ensure that this site, or any similar web-sites, is no longer used. This includes www.jerseyfsc.co.uk and www.jerseyfsc.net"..... "The web-site address is clearly designed to replicate that of the commission's identity and name. The sites are required to be shut down by you forthwith upon receipt of this letter. Please confirm by return that you have done this."

Such arrogance. Such tosh!

Strange that Mourant appeared to know so little about websites and the law covering them. For a start, the statement that jerseyfsc.com was designed to replicate the design or structure of the JFSC website was totally absurd. The jerseyfsc.com site is written in html is a shade of yellow and is called "Jersey Financial Scandals Collection".

In addition, when you enter jerseyfsc.com, there is a clear statement that the site is not the Jersey Financial Services Commission site and it gives their website address. Domain names (website addresses) are not the specific preserve of business. In fact, the majority of website and domain names are non-profit-making personal sites which easily out number websites and domain names for businesses. In fact, a private individual, Dr. Lieven P. Van Neste owns well over 200,000 domain names.

The JFSC failed to register

It is clear that the JfSC failed to register a whole series of domain sites involved around the letters jerseyfsc or jfsc. If it wished no one else to use those initials they should have registered them. This is an elementary mistake which no competent IT manager should make. It is very significant that from June to November 2004 the Jersey Financial Scandals Collection bubbled along with no problems until the site carried a report from International Business week about a scandal in China and Hong Kong, when Mr David Carse was in charge of regulating banks there. Headed "The Bank of China's Black Hole" the article went onto describe how nearly half a billion US Dollars had been systematically siphoned off from the Bank of China. The article stated: "The case cast a harsh light on Beijing and Hong Kong regulators, who allowed the leakage to go on for almost a decade without detection" "David T.R. Carse, deputy chief of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority defends his agency saying money laundering is a global problem and that Hong Kong has stepped up its surveillance of the banking system in recent months."

Jersey Financial Scandals also published a report from the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce newsletter of 3rd December 2002, which reported that three people had resigned from the Monetary Authority triggering a re- shuffle, "Hong Kong's longest serving banking regulator, David Carse is bowing out. Most attention will be focused, on the departure of deputy chief executive in charge of banking regulation, Mr. Carse, when his contact expires in March. But he says he is willing to stay until a successor is chosen".

Defamed

Mr. Carse claims that by putting these two items together, he has been defamed. So incensed was he that, he instructed Mourant, to put pressure on the IT manager's trust company bosses to tell the IT manager if he did not remove the website he would be suspended if he continued to defy them. When the IT manager went before the Bailiff to ask for an

administrative hearing on the grounds that the JFSC had used undue pressure on his employer, the Bailiff decided that they had acted quite properly. Knowing the whole case and having seen all the correspondence and being fully aware of the way in which the trust Company had been treated by the JFSC, I thought this judgement was naive and totally against the evidence.

I have particular hatred of public servants and politicians who do all they can to suppress free speech. This stems from the fact that I have three uncles, who all volunteered in 1939 to go to war to preserve this most precious of rights that so many take for granted. My uncles were 19, 18 and 17 when they enlisted, the 17 year old lying about his age. All saw action and the youngest became a Red Beret and parachuted into France as part of "the bridge too far" action. He was blown up by a German grenade and spent six months in a UK Hospital. His life was blighted by pain and when I visit him in The Limes' and see the pain etched on his face I feel deep anger at those people who devalue what he fought for. I have always believed in Voltaire's' dictum. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It was this which led me to write a piece on my own website on 21/12/04 on www.tedvibert.com in the following terms WHAT IS DAVID CARSE HEAD OF THE JFSC SO SCARED OF

"You have to wonder what is going on behind the doors of their David Place building. Mr. Carse's reaction to a web-site, owned by an IT manager of a trust company, who calls his site jerseyfsc, standing for Jersey Financial Scandals Collection, deals with news from financial centres around the world.

The web-site contained a story from Newsweek about a financial scandal in Hong Kong in 2002, after which three top members of the Hong Kong Commission left their posts and resigned. One of them was Mr. Carse. The site asked the question as to whether or not Mr. Carse informed the island authorities about this when he was interviewed for the job.

The site raises general questions about the size of Mr. Carse's salary (over £200,000 a year), the fact that commissioners got a 66% increase in wages (mode average)) and their wages bill is now £4 million pounds a year and yet they seem to need a large number of outside consultants to do their work."

All of this is quite legitimate comment – but Mr. Carse is clearly upset by it and instructed the Commission lawyers to close down the web-site on the grounds that it was "misleading to the public." That is all that has appeared on the websites about Mr. Carse. So you have to wonder - what is all the fuss about?

Mrs Hatton

With respect to Mrs Hatton, his deputy, all that has appeared on the sites about her are questions about how the JFSC could own companies that own property, sell them and no profits are recorded in the company accounts.

How did Mrs Hatton acquire a property in 1999 on a J category licence – she should not have been able to buy a property and sell it four years later, for a profit of £110,000? As the JFSC guaranteed her loan, does that not become a liability in their accounts? Why isn't it recorded? As the property was bought by a company owned by the JFSC and it was bought for the purpose by making a profit, why was no tax paid on the profit? As Mrs Hatton was a public servant and public servants were not permitted to use this device until 2003, why was an exception made for Mrs Hatton? None of this is defamatory but merely questioning. Again, I ask, what's the fuss all about?

Damaging Jersey's Reputation

Senator Walker and his colleagues have made much of the damage this is doing to the islands reputation in international financial circles. At a seminar last week organised by the JFSC, Senator Walker , his friend and political supporter Mr. Martin Scriven, President of the Jersey Bankers Association, Mr. Colin Powell and Mr. Phil Austin of Jersey Financial Ltd all severely criticised me. It's very easy to attack a person when he is not present. I wonder if they all would have been prepared to do that had I been present and given the right of reply. It takes courage to have a shot at a person when he is eye-balling you and you know he has the right to defend himself. To do it with a person absent is a form of "coward's castle". I can't believe that these people can possibly believe that a public argument between a senator and the financial regulators, about something said on a website, can do any harm at all. It shows that we are a robust and free speaking society. If it was so damaging, why completely re-gurgitate it all over their own website?

What is doing far more damage to Jersey's International reputation is having a member of the British Parliament putting up a proposition calling on Jersey to introduce Human Right's Legislation.

If Senator Walker was to concentrate more on governing than trying to defend his friends and colleagues, Jersey would be able to walk a little taller than it currently can on the world stage.

Letters from Mr. David Carse and Mrs. Helen Hatton to Senator E.P. Vibert

Letter from Mr. Colin Powell to the Editor of the Jersey Evening Post