Before the orchestrated hysteria from the US regulator hits our shores, yet again this World Nanny State is decreeing that SC is supporting terrorists presumably because they can't nail us over Libor, so they will go for us for disobeying their diktat about who or who not is eligible for trade. It comes as no surprise to me since our managing director had the steel to stand up to the Americans with his celebrated reply in 2006 "You f****** Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians". If Wall Street listens to their man, they will suddenly find financial institutions deserting America in their droves, and if we lose our licence, the reverberations will probably trigger a full scale depression. Britain has much to thank my bank for after the 2008 Lehman Brothers debacle. If we do not again stand firm and tell America to mind their own business and allow us to mind ours, we will lose our last chance to seek independence from Europe. Terrorists have abounded since nasty individuals crept the earth. Many good people in our World have a right to live and be treated as equals, and America should reflect that this aggressive move is not in keeping with the Olympic spirit they are supposed to be endorsing right now. If that regulator finds a spare moment to consult his history book, he will find that the Olympic movement was instituted as an honour to the gods, in recognition of the piece of work that is man and of the birthright bequeathed to them as mortal embodiments of the immortals, and respect shown by a temporary suspension of hostilities with due reflection...
Would that these children would listen to the ancients, and start looking after each other in the spirit of reconciliation and friendship, for their sake, as well as for the sake of their own children. Syria, Afghanistan, America, stop your utterly futile war games, and listen...
I have to say I hate that when America issue a diktat to the world and that Britain is the first to stand to attention and "Obey" their diktat, however.........
It is increasingly difficult to know who to trust........ We are reminded nearly every other day how the Iranians or the great Satan who want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, and we have heard Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak these threats.
Then we have the Americans with there Christian/Jewish religious belt who are driving American policy to attack Iran and from articles I have read, the Christian/Jews believe the "Second Coming of their Saviour" will only happen after one final war to end all wars!!
"The Antichrist's appearance will be followed by the war to end all wars, centered in the Holy Land. Just when it appears that evil has been victorious, Christ will come in glory and bring victory. This is suggested in a number of passages in both the Old and the New Testaments; most are mysterious in nature and subject to multiple interpretations."
So we have Christian/Jews who want the "Second Coming" and are driving policy towards war with Iran in a "Vain" attempt to bring about their "Second Coming".
Which makes me struggle with who to believe and your comment below where you said..........
"It comes as no surprise to me since our managing director had the steel to stand up to the Americans with his celebrated reply in 2006 "You f****** Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians"
Which makes me ask why would anyone chose to deal or trade with the Iranians when they are uttering threats to wipe a country (Israel) off the face of the earth.
The Iranian threat I referred to above is frightening in the extreme and is very provocative.
Then having a country like America which is being drive by Christians/Jewish bible belt in hope of their "Second Coming" is even more frightening.
Everyone was scared stiff of North Korea until their missile hardly got off the ground! Iran need to trade to preserve their standing as a major oil producer. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? Who had the upper hand? The Americans, of course! Nothing has changed - the chances of Iran launching a nuclear strike are not much better that North Korea's. They may have a few raw materials, but the wherewithal to make nuclear weapons is probably now negligible as agencies have been systematically taking out their research scientists, which is why it has all suddenly gone quiet.
I have very little time for all this religious fanaticism and am a confirmed agnostic, with no intention of changing.
Standard Chartered has served communities in the World for over 180 years, and is one of the most respected banks in the World. Just because they won't buy the American propaganda, does not make them pariahs. They have a very good reputation for fairness. Today, they suggested that America is deliberately targeting the UK city banks, in an effort to get the World to consider changing moving commerce from the City (about whom they are jealous) to Wall Street. I believe this whole thing is going to backfire very badly for America. The World is getting tired of being bullied by Uncle Sam. As for Ahmadinajad, he's already history.
As predicted, this seems a deliberate attempt by America to discredit our banks, and Mr Mann, on the Parliamentary Finance Committee has tabled a motion this morning to that effect. Boris Johnson agrees.
Standard Chartered shares are already recovering strongly as a result. As I said, all this is going to rebound badly for America, which will probably end up hitting all of us, and prolonging the recession. I believe Mr Lawsky, the New York regulator, has much to answer for.
Sky report : "Standard Chartered has hit back over Iran claims
Standard Chartered's share price was boosted by almost 7% during morning trading after the firm strongly rejected claims it is a "rogue institution" that breached money laundering laws with Iran.
The rise follows a share price plummet of 16.43% late on Tuesday, which saw £8.2bn wiped off the bank's value.
It was the steepest fall in one day for more than two decades and brought shares down to a three-year low of £10.92.
It comes as it emerged the US treasury and federal reserve are angry with New York's banking regulator for going public with an explosive attack on Standard Chartered.
The New York state department of financial services (DFS) accused the British bank of violating US law by laundering $250bn (£160bn) in transactions tied to Iran.
Head of the DFS, Benjamin Lawsky said Standard Chartered's dealings exposed the US banking system to terrorists, drug traffickers and corrupt states.
Meanwhile politicians in the UK claim the assault on the bank is part of an "anti-British bias" as US authorities plot to undermine London's banking sector.
Labour MP John Mann said: "I think it's a concerted effort that's been organised at the top of the US government.
"This is Washington trying to win a commercial battle to have trading from London shifted to New York."
the more you hear about this case it just appears to be a 'shake down' of standard chartered bank. It is ridiculous the disparity in accounts from the ceo and the US authorities. If it has been going on for so long then it is impossiible that the US authorities would not have known about it especially given the sums involved. I think it is a distraction from the oncoming libor scandal that will show american banks involved and i think it is to do with an attempt to solidify NY's status as a banking hub over UK. David if you want to do a piece on this i'm happy to publish an article on front page given your knowledge of this sector.
Thank you for your invitation, but regrettably I cannot comment while discussions are ongoing, and I have probably said enough as it is. The truth is, that when it comes to world trade, the US $ rules. However, the currency markets are presently sending their message loud and clear. We use your dollar, but we will not be bullied by you. If you want your own economy to recover, you will cease your individual scapegoating activities which are not conducive to healthy trade among nations...
The shares are recovering, which is a bit of a vote of no confidence in Lawsky's unprecedented attack on my bank. The Federal Reserve do not appear to be amused either!
there is a general trend of subservience which i don't think is healthy for the UK's reputation especially as the world is genuinely becoming multipolar....Assange,Tappin et al. In Assange's case it would have been great for the UK to show itself as a beacon of free speech. As it turns out the govt can override findings of the serious fraud office as it did when prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia was found guilty of having taken a kick back of $1 billion in the Al Yamam arms deal. So what is the point of having a sfo investigation into Libor???
I do so agree with you. Free speech is already severely compromised in so many vital areas, not least medicine, politics, finance and trade. The Mafia or its equivalent is everywhere, (but the Italian lot actually like me for past teaching services rendered!). I myself, have received threats... sad... sometimes, I don't feel safe... but I'm old and I've been more fortunate than many, so I don't care any more!
Due to my very limited knowledge regarding Banks' dealings with dodgy Governments
and terrorists, I am unable to make comment other than to quote the old adage
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" As has been said, it sounds as though the Americans are in danger of being bitten on the proverbial backside!
Perhaps your being a little "partisan" and perhaps your refusal may have to do with the outcome ..........
Standard Chartered has agreed a £217m ($340m) settlement with US regulators over allegations the UK-based bank hid illegal transactions involving Iran.
"The parties have agreed that the conduct at issue involved transactions of at least $250bn."
News of the settlement came after Standard Chartered's chief executive Peter Sands, who strongly denied the allegations last week, flew to New York to take personal control of the bank's attempts to reach a settlement.
Standard Chartered has fended off threats by a New York regulator to revoke its banking licence for alleged breaches of US sanctions. Chief executive Peter Sands is however under intense pressure after the bank agreed to pay $340m (£220m) despite insisting that it had committed only minor breaches of the rules.
Lawsky claims that Standard Chartered schemed to hide 60,000 transactions valued at about $250bn (£160bn) which breached sanctions with Iran. Sands admitted to only 300 breaches, with a much smaller value of about $14m.
If chief executive Peter Sands truly believes that the sum was only $14 million why did he agree to pay a fine off $340 million fine.
This surely demonstrates that "Standard Chartered" are admitting "Guilty" and to stop them from being "banned" from losing their licence.
With the US $ as the international currency, what choice do they have than play by American rules? It seems that if America decrees that Iran is off limits, everyone must follow America's decree. To risk losing their licence would result at first in massive depreciation of the bank itself, and probably end up in its demise. That is not to say, that in the eyes of the world it is a tainted bank unless you buy the propaganda. Standard Chartered chose to trade with Iran because it believed it had a right to do so. Their courage has cost them dear as it is. So, yes, I am partisan, because I know my bank is a good one and most of the world who have had dealings with them know this as well.
I should add too that Standard Chartered in compliance with US regulations have had no dealings with Iran for the past five years, and they have been in contact with the State Department much longer than that. You may draw your own conclusions about the real agenda behind all this, but I recommend today's Independent which clearly shows the heads we lose, tails we lose dilemma the bank faces. It is a question of degree of damage, and the shares appear to be recovering strongly as a result of the agreed settlement. It is to be hoped that the rest of the wolves will be persuaded to find other prey now.
Surely Standard Chartered would have know the rules before they got their licence and they also must have signed up to and agreed to the rules, so therefore must obey the rules.
It would be like you or I passing our driving test getting a licence and knowing we drive on left hand side of the road then just ignoring the rules and driving on on the right hand side or driving up the wrong side off the motorway.
Rules are rules and are there for a purpose.
It's all very well Standard Chartered disagreeing with the rules but to break the rules and keep hidden what they were up to just reinforces my belief that "All" bankers are "Legalised Crooks" who manipulate rules to suit themselves.
If Standard Chartered don't agree with the rules they should have tried to change the rules not break them.
Just for the record ........ I don't like the rest of the world cosying up to the American bullying or dominating but we should find a way to beat their rules not join a club then break the rules.
It is obvious that Standard Chartered Chief Executive Peter Sands knows there was Skulduggery going on and is why he paid such a huge fine which in real terms was nothing compared to $250 billion they got away with.
You are entitled to your opinion which I do not share. Furthermore I would say that everyone is entitled to a life, including Iranians, and come to think of it, I believe it was one of their seers who was responsible for the ancient adage - laws are instituted for the guidance of wise men and the adoption of fools... Persia's heritage includes a civilisation which was once the envy of the world... I believe that despite the taint of religious bigotry, (common it seems in most nations including the USA and our own), there remain very wise people in that country today.
You are right to say that everyone is entitled to a life, however.......
If you had a neighbour on one side polite and did not interfere with you and your family but one day need your help and support, I think you would be only to willing to give them the help they needed.
Your neighbour who lives next door on your opposite side, utter threats to wipe you and your family off the face of the earth..... I don't think you would be so readily willing to give them help & support if they needed it.
So why would you expect the Iranians not to be "Ostracised"?