Why on earth would HSBC leave a country that gives banks an easy ride?

Prem Sikka in The Guardian

Bankers in the UK have faced no prosecutions – despite their serial abuses, and the catastrophic consequences of their actions.

 

‘Perhaps someone would investigate the culture that enriches a few at the expense of many.’ Photograph: Reinhard Krause/Reuters


So, HSBC is retaining its headquarters in London. Was there ever any danger that it would quit a cosy jurisdiction with feather-duster regulation and prosecutions as rare as hen’s teeth?

Banks have little to fear here, as UK regulators and prosecutors rarely take action.

In 2012, HSBC paid a fine of $1.9bn to US authorities for its role in money laundering by drug traffickers and governments on sanctions lists. The US Department of Justice stated that the bank “accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and that of its employees”. In 2015, the Swiss authorities fined HSBC 40m Swiss francs (£28m) for “organisational deficiencies” that allowed money laundering to take place in the bank’s Swiss subsidiary. UK regulators twiddled their thumbs.

Leaked documents showed that HSBC’s Swiss banking arm helped around 30,000 wealthy clients dodge taxes. As the primary regulator of HSBC, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) promised investigations. Just a few weeks later, Martin Wheatley, the FCA chief executive found that his contract was not being renewed, even though he had some “unfinished business”. In January, HMRC told the House of Commons public accounts committee that it had abandoned its criminal investigation into the role of HSBC in alleged illegal activities.

HSBC to keep its headquarters in London



Bankers face no retribution in the UK. Iceland has sent 29 bankers to prison for their role in the 2007-08 banking crash. The UK’s overcrowded prisons could have squeezed in some bankers, but there have been no prosecutions for bringing down the industry and ushering in austerity. The UK finance industry has been a serial offender, as evidenced by mis-selling of pensions, endowment mortgages, payment protection insurance and rigging of interest rates, but successive governments have failed to prosecute.

Abuses are deeply ingrained into the bank business models that pursue ever rising profits and mega performance-related remuneration for executives. Perhaps someone would investigate the culture that enriches a few at the expense of many. Despite the fanfare of an investigation, the FCA, possibly under pressure from the Treasury, dropped its investigation into banking culture.

Auditors are paid vast sums to evaluate internal controls operated by banks. Yet all ailing banks received a clean bill of health before the 2007-08 crash. This should have prompted the regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, to act, but it did not.

Irked by this inertia, Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the Commons treasury committee, pressed the FRC to investigate the audits of HBOS, a bank bailed out by taxpayers in 2008. In January 2016, some eight years after the events, the FRC said that it is considering making some “preliminary inquiries”.

It is not only regulators, prosecutors are missing too. In the US, Citicorp, JPMorgan, Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS have pleaded guilty to manipulating the foreign exchange rates, and traders have also been convicted of rigging a benchmark interest rate known as the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor). In the UK, the Serious Fraud Office has recently lost six cases of alleged rigging of Libor. It previously botched investigation into the collapse of Icelandic banks.

Deep reforms of the finance industry are not on the government agenda. After the banking crash, the government sought to take the heat out of the public debate by appointing an Independent Commission on Banking, under the chairmanship of Sir John Vickers. Its 2011 report recommended ringfencing retail banking from speculative trading. In the interest of stability, the report recommended that banks have a broader capital base to enable them to absorb shocks. Both remain unimplemented. Last Sunday, Vickers complained that the Bank of England had watered down the proposals, and banks might not have enough financial buffers to survive the next crisis.

The above is just a small illustration of the shameless appeasement of the finance industry by the UK government. It is hardly surprising that HSBC and other financial behemoths find London attractive. The finance industry may welcome the government’s capitulation, but the rest us are repulsed by the stench of scandals and bailouts. The UK’s regulatory system has utterly failed and needs to be redesigned.

With this tax dodger list the Revenue shames only itself

By singling out barbers and pipe fitters, HMRC shows it takes care of the little people, while Amazon looks after itself

• 
• • Marina Hyde
  • The Guardian, Friday 22 February 2013 19.30 GMT

'Public enemy No 1 is a Liverpool hairdresser… Or rather, in the interests of accuracy, he is only one master criminal on a list of nine coveted scalps.' Illustration by Matthew Richardson

Pondering one of the more delicious ironies of 20th century American justice, people always say wryly that they could only pin tax evasion on Al Capone. Pondering HM Revenue and Custom's 21st century name-and-shame list, they will say that they could only pin tax evasion on hairdressers.

If you have spent the past few months – or indeed decades – frothing with righteous indignation at the refusal of various major corporations profiting in the UK to pay so much as 37p in tax, let alone their fair share, you will be encouraged to learn that public enemy No 1 is a Liverpool hairdresser whom the Revenue eventually fined 17 grand for deliberate default. Or rather, in the interests of accuracy, he is only one master criminal on a list of nine coveted scalps. Others include a pipe fitter who settled with them for £10,986 and a Nottinghamshire knitwear firm that was eventually fined £86,765.54. The big kahuna is a wine firm from Mobberley in Cheshire. I'd quite like to see their thrilling stories told in a modern  version of The Untouchables. As the Eliot Ness of the piece, the taxman ought to be played by a clean-cut do-gooder – Ryan Gosling perhaps – with Robert De Niro returning to take the role of the Fife grocer.

As so often in this septic isle, it's the pettiness of it all that's the tragedy. If these are the names, then the shame must be the Revenue's. Yet they seem to have trumpeted this exciting new direction in their tax-hunting activities with similar fanfare to that which must have attended the nailing of Capone. Ladies and gentleman … We got him.

Needless to say, this isn't a defence of the named and shamed, who are no doubt dreadful little chisellers. I'm afraid I'm one of those ineffably dreary sorts who doesn't pay cash in hand, gladly operates as well as submits to PAYE, and really can't be doing with tax avoiders at all. Blah, blah, blah. But for all my easy-won goody goody-ness, I pretty much need to know that every last megacorp doing business in our land has paid every last penny they owe before we start boasting about having nailed Cool Cutz, or Headmasterz, or whatever hair-based pun adorns this chap's salon lintel.

Predictably, this isn't the line HMRC's Treasury overlords have gone with, as Treasury minister David Gauke once again suggested that tax avoiders have nowhere to hide. (Except in plain sight, as some of Britain's most successful companies.)

Are you convinced by Mr Gauke? I can't help feeling that as a former corporate tax lawyer, married to a corporate tax lawyer, and a chap who used taxpayers' money for stamp duty on his second home move, he is somewhat miscast as the Simon Wiesenthal of hunting down tax avoiders.

I suppose he thinks getting on the airwaves to big up the HMRC list counts as Being Seen To Be Doing Something, as do his underlings in the Revenue themselves. Yet, as a piece of political theatre, this outing feels marginally less successful than Sooty and Sweep's production of One for the Road. There has been a huge and exhilarating outpouring of anger over tax avoidance over the past year, as the issue has moved closer to the centre of the stage than it has been in decades. To say that HMRC publishing a list of nine small businesses squanders that goodwill feels something of an understatement.

What is the intended message, if we may flatter the stunt in that way? That if HMRC look after the little people then the big people will look after themselves? You can't deny it's working. The big people seem to be looking after themselves very well indeed, and though this stunningly misdirected exercise stops just shy of congratulating the major multinationals who avoid tax, the indication of where the Revenue's focus lies effectively does just that.

If I were a mischievous billionaire I would stage a piece of political theatre myself. I would find out whichever hotshot tax lawyers act for Starbucks or Google, and hire them at vast expense to defend the likes of the pipe-fitter and the grocer. They'd end up getting a £300,000 rebate, which would make the point about the real problem more eloquently than Gauke and his cabinet seniors ever could. Certainly more than they'd ever care to, on this evidence.

As for the Revenue, it takes a special sort of flat-footedness to snatch defeat from the jaws of moral victory – but ultimately we must remember the calibre of the organisation with which we are dealing here. I merely pass on to you the tale of one self-employed friend, who was relentlessly pursued over a mystery cheque of around £2,750 that she had written and could not – a long time after the event – explain. She couldn't find the stub, the bank had somehow lost the details, and the investigating Revenue official was under the impression that she had written it as some kind of tax dodge. What kind was unclear, but he wanted to know what she was hiding. After two or three years of this, he brought his investigation to a graceless close. It had emerged that the cheque in question had in fact been paid to one HMRC, in settlement of income tax. Which should give the likes of Amazon a flavour of the worthiness of their foe.

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance

As Joanne Gibbons' case shows, benefit underpayments save us more than 'cheats' cost us. We need to target the real villains

• 
• • James Ball
  • guardian.co.uk, Sunday 3 February 2013 12.06 GMT

Had Gibbons claimed the benefits to which she was entitled she could have collected double her 'fraudulent' claims. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

 

Joanne Gibbons was sentenced to community service for claiming income support while holding down two paid jobs. Through accumulated payments of £66-a-week, the court heard, she collected £3,140 to which she wasn't entitled.

Predictably, the Daily Mail is outraged. But here's the strange twist: had Gibbons claimed the benefits to which she was actually entitled, she could have collected £130 a week through family tax credits and child benefit. In total, Gibbons' fraudulent claims cost the taxpayer around £3,100 less than claiming what she was actually entitled to.

It's the reaction to Gibbons' claims which are particularly noteworthy. Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance – an organisation rarely troubled by wealthy people's tax avoidance – tells the Mail:

"It beggars belief that somebody going to the lengths of making fraudulent claims would have actually received more in benefits had they been honest.

"It just goes to show that the current system is broken and doesn't provide the right incentives for claimants to go back to work."

This quote suggests Sinclair is perhaps even less numerate than the "benefits cheat" he's deriding. Gibbons was entitled to £130 a week in legitimate benefits, while working on two low-income jobs. This total was higher than the £66 a week out-of-work benefit she was improperly claiming (though some of the £130 a week could be claimed in or out of work).

In what sense is a system which tops up low wages a disincentive to work? Sinclair appears lost in lazy rhetoric – an all-too-common failing when it comes to chastising the millions of families, most of whom with at least one adult in work, who rely on the benefit system.

The British public believe benefit fraud is a big problem. A recent poll by the TUC showed people believe 27% of the welfare budget is fraudulently claimed.

The reality is very different. Last year, 0.7% of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud, according to the DWP's official estimates. This totalled £1.2bn over the year. Nor is fraud getting worse – even against a background of benefit cuts and long-term unemployment fraud made up a smaller share of the welfare bill last year than it did in 2010/11 or 2009/10.

Indeed, welfare fraud is smaller than accidental overpayments due to error, which totalled £2.2bn (£1.4bn of which due to official error). It's also smaller than the amount of money underpaid to those entitled to it: £1.3bn.

In other words, if we wiped out benefit fraud tomorrow – but also eliminated the errors that deprive people of money to which they are entitled – the welfare bill would grow, not shrink.

In the context of the UK's £700bn public spending, and £150bn+ welfare bill (of which pensions and in-work benefits make up the substantial majority), benefit fraud is a relatively small revenue loss. But how does it compare to another textbook villain: tax avoidance?

Put simply, it is comparatively tiny. HMRC consistently estimates the UK's tax gap – the gap between what HMRC thinks it should receive versus what it actually gets – at more than £30bn per year. Others estimate this is far, far higher.

Of this, even conservative estimates suggest around a sixth – £5bn a year – is lost through tax avoidance, tricks to reduce tax bills which fall within the letter (if not spirit) of the law, but often fall outside what's regarded as acceptable by the public. A further sixth, at least, is estimated to be due to wholesale tax evasion: simply illegally not paying the tax that's owed.

These conservative estimates alone outweigh benefit fraud by a factor of eight, but this time not done in tens (or at most hundreds) of pounds per week by people struggling to get by; but rather by people who could afford to pay more, but prefer not to.

Benefit underpayments save us more money than benefit fraud costs us. By the most conservative estimates, tax avoidance and tax evasion outweighs benefit fraud eightfold. But the constant target of argument – "scroungers", "benefit cheats", and more, isn't the well-heeled middle classes who knock a little off their tax return, or the high-rollers with elaborate offshore schemes.

Instead, it's those at the bottom of society – for the government, perhaps, it makes it easier to sell the public swingeing cuts to the safety net that millions of families, both in and out of work, rely on to get by. For the Mail, it's easier to sell papers by buying into the easy preconceptions of their readers than bothering to challenge them.

Unfortunately, all too often, that's a view the Labour party – and others on the left – seem all too happy to go along with. If we must have national villains, surely we can do better than these?