Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander

Treasury written question – answered on 19th March 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Vincent Cable Vincent Cable Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Treasury)

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs incurred by his Department in (a) legal and (b) accountancy fees relating to (i) Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander and (ii) Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander (Isle of Man) in each of the last six months.

Photo of Ian Pearson Ian Pearson Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Economic and Business), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Economic Secretary (Economic and Business), HM Treasury

The figures in relation to Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander will be included in the Treasury annual resource accounts 2008-09 in due course.

Arrangements for depositors in banks in the Isle of Man, including Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander, Isle of Man, are a matter for the Government of the Isle of Man. The Treasury has not engaged external financial advisers in relation to Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander, Isle of Man.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes0 people think so

No14 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

James Blake
Posted on 25 Mar 2009 11:22 pm (Report this annotation)

No Mr Pearson. You are wrong. It is not a matter for the IoM Government for two reasons;

1. The UK Citizens who banked there were forced to do so. 2007 legislation regarding identity verification meant that UK citizens without onshore addresses found it impossible to open (or indeed continue to hold) UK bank accounts.

2. It was on the advice of the UK FSC (via the now discredited IoM FSA) that Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander was coerced into putting a huge deposit of £553M into Kaupthing UK.

3. It was the actions of the UK Treasury (Mr Darling's department, I beleive) on the 7th of October that resulted in the fall of the IoM bank.

4. The UK Government have the authority to trigger the return of the £550M to the IoM which they are now using as some form of ransom to the IoM Government. The UK Government could do this with no cost to the tax payer - as evidenced by the return of Dave Whelans £40M (it will be interesting to see the records of his political donations).

So Mr Pearson, as i stated above; you are entirly wrong and continue to mislead the UK Parliament. With so many peoples lives and livelyhoods at stake that is disgusting.

James Blake
Posted on 30 Mar 2009 11:37 pm (Report this annotation)

Why is it then, Mr Pearson, that the Liquidators are following Government rules in paying back desperatly needy people such as Dave - Rolling in Millions - Whelan and PLC companies such as Stockcube Plc!??? All this while British families who were forced to use offshore banks by 2007 money laundering legislation are breaking down, children are going hungry, homes repossesed and now lives being lost.

Yet, STILL, the likes of the Honourable Mr. Pearson, Mr Darling and Mr Brown say it has nothing to do with them as it is a matter for the Isle of Man. Wrong, YOU forced non-domiciled British Citizens to use offshore banks and it was YOU who persuaded a triple A rated bank to put its money in a dodgy UK bank and then it was YOU who forced the bank into liquidation with instructions from YOU to the liquidators to not repay the money thousands of lives relied on.

George Davis
Posted on 31 Mar 2009 9:35 am (Report this annotation)

Apart from his inability to count, James Blake is spot on. This Parliament's callousness towards it's own citizens is really unbelievable.

They forced British Citizens living overseas to use offshore banks and then, after destroying a perfectly good bank, refuse to even acknowledge the damage they have done, let alone take the simple steps to rectify it.

They could if they wanted, as Dave Whelan and Stockcube Plc demonstrate. This is Government and Parliament that simply doesnt care.