Officers and officials of financial institutions arc, as a basic rule, obliged to keep secret information obtained by virtue of their position. The same applies to valuers…
Abstract
Officers and officials of financial institutions arc, as a basic rule, obliged to keep secret information obtained by virtue of their position. The same applies to valuers, commission agents and others who carry out assignments for business. Such an obligation is not only laid down in the general provision on secrecy in the Financial Services Act 1988 (FSA), which applies to all financing businesses. The duty to keep secret information coming to knowledge in a professional capacity also follows from the more specific legislation governing some financial institutions; such as savings banks, commercial banks, companies or other institutions comprised under the Insurance Operation Act and the Norwegian Postbank.
Morten Eriksen and Tarjei Thorkildsen
In most jurisdictions a suspect has the right to remain silent during criminal proceedings and he cannot be penalised for making false statements. This is loosely known as the…
Abstract
In most jurisdictions a suspect has the right to remain silent during criminal proceedings and he cannot be penalised for making false statements. This is loosely known as the ‘ban on self incrimination’ and is regarded as an important factor in due process protection of individuals subject to criminal proceedings. The right to silence applies only to the stage of criminal proceedings, and up to date it has surprisingly not been seriously debated. A criminal may have caused individuals and society major loss, damage or suffering; in principle one would expect that he would be obliged to assist in the clearing‐up of the case, particularly if this could ameliorate or repair the negative consequences of the crime. But this is not the way it is looked at. The suspect is under pressure, and must not be faced with the choice of lying or confessing.
In recent times, there has been some disquiet within certain sectors of the Singapore business community over the role of auditors in detecting corporate fraud. The cause of this…
Abstract
In recent times, there has been some disquiet within certain sectors of the Singapore business community over the role of auditors in detecting corporate fraud. The cause of this concern can perhaps be attributed partly to the Barings collapse in February 1995 and the subsequent suggestions that the auditors of the Barings subsidiary in Singapore, Barings Futures Singapore Pte Ltd (BFS), may have been negligent in their audit work. More recently, in mid‐1996, a substantial locally listed company, Amcol Holdings Ltd (Amcol), was placed under judicial management amid rumours alleging possible misdeeds by senior executives and directors. The Amcol saga has, once again, focused some attention on the role of auditors and their duty to detect fraud in company accounts.
A unifying theme apparent at this year's Symposium was the need for balance when lifting the veil of bank secrecy: (1) the need to protect civil liberties versus the need to fight…
Abstract
A unifying theme apparent at this year's Symposium was the need for balance when lifting the veil of bank secrecy: (1) the need to protect civil liberties versus the need to fight crime; (2) the bank's need to balance its role as policeman while furthering its commercial objectives; (3) the necessity of weighing international cooperation against the awareness that individual nations jealously guard their own legislative regime; (4) the dichotomy of technology that serves both to protect and penetrate secrecy; (5) the balance required when investigating crimes.