Abuse of Process
YORKSHIRE-BASED fraud and business crime solicitors Rahman Ravelli have been ranked in the elite in the worlds most prestigious legal directory.
The firm, which has its head office in Halifax and a base in the City of London, has been classed in the Tier 1 group of crime lawyers by the authors of "The Legal 500". It means that the highly-respected international directory has classed Rahman Ravelli as one of the very best for handling national and international fraud and corruption cases.
This year's edition of the legal guide, released today (Thurs Sept 26), describes the Rahman Ravelli legal team as being diligent and taking "a creative and innovative approach to case preparation". The guide describes company founder Aziz Rahman as "charismatic and indefatigable" and praises Rahman Ravelli's Helen Lynch as a "true specialist" for her proceeds of crime work.
Rahman Ravelli's London operation also gains particular praise in the guide. The Legal 500 says one of the firm's solicitors in the capital, Neil Williams, is "very proactive" and refers to Aziz Rahman’s work in London as "very tactically aware".
The Legal 500 has also announced today that Rahman Ravelli has been shortlisted for the very first Legal 500 UK Awards. Winners will be announced on October 2.
Aziz Rahman said: "This firm has worked hard to reach the position we are in. We are delighted that our dedication, hard work and great track record of success has been recognised by The Legal 500.
"At Rahman Ravelli, we believe our clients should be the ones to benefit from our work. But it is pleasing for all of us to have gained such a prestigious ranking and the chance of an award."
One of the leading cases in this area is R (Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates’ Court; Mouat v DPP [2001] 2 Cr. App. R, 23, DC. The High Court considered the situation where the two defendants, in two separate cases had asserted that video evidence would have assisted their defences but where the video material was no longer available. In Mr. Mouat’s case he was videoed by an unmarked police car exceeding the speed limit. His defence was that he was trying to get away from a driver who was driving dangerously close behind him and he had no idea it was a police car; i.e. duress of circumstances. Once he stopped he was shown the video by the officers and had the choice to accept a penalty or go to trial – he elected trial. By the time of the trial the tapes in the police car had been re-used. The High Court quashed Mr. Mouat’s conviction. Mr. Ebrahim was not so fortunate. Ebrahim’s case concerned un-seized CCTV material. On the facts of that case the Court found that the defendant had a fair trial eventhough the CCTV material was missing. The Court of Appeal said that when considering an abuse application on this basis a Judge must consider what the duty was to preserve any video material. If the court finds that there is no such duty for the material in question to be seized or preserved then there can be no stay of the prosecution. If, alternatively, there is such a duty, and it has been breached, then the court can only consider staying the indictment as an exceptional measure as the trial process itself can remedy the problem; e.g. by the Judge warning the jury about missing evidence, or by him excluding certain other evidence and so on. If, however, the police or the prosecution appear to have acted with “bad faith or at the very least some serious fault” then a stay may be more readily granted.
Two Categories of Abuse
In considering the development of the case law it is clear that the Higher Courts will sometimes use the abuse of process jurisdiction to effectively ‘punish’ the police or prosecution for errors or faults. This ‘serious fault’ limb of the abuse of process jurisdiction highlights the way abuse applications fall into two broad categories; Category 1 cases where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, and Category 2 cases where it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried: see R v Beckford (1996) 1 Cr App R 94, 101. Thus, if evidence that should have been seized by the police but now cannot be obtained, but would have been helpful to the defence, then that is a ‘Category 1’ situation and the Judge could, exceptionally, stay the trial on the basis that the defendant could not get a fair trial.
If, however, the police had the material but maliciously destroyed it, then that would be a ‘Category 2’ case and even though the defendant could get a fair trial it would be unfair to try him – in as much as it would offend our sense of justice and bring the administration of the criminal justice system into disrepute to do so, see e.g. R v Mullen [1999] 1 AC 42, HL.
R v Grant [2005] 2 Cr. App. R 28 is a Category 2 case. The police eavesdropped on the communications of a suspect and his solicitor. The Court held that unlawful acts of such a kind, amounting to a deliberate violation of a suspect’s right to legal privilege were such an affront to the integrity of the justice system that the prosecution was rendered abusive. However, this case has now been expressly disapproved by the Privy Council in Curtis Warren v Att. General for Jersey [2011] 2 ALL ER 513, PC. In that case the police had placed an audio probe in the defendant's hire car which would be driven through a number of overseas European countries. The police knew that permission from those countries had been refused for the use of such devices but went ahead anyway. The consequent abuse of process application failed, a decision upheld on appeal. Much turned on the facts of the case but the Council found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to say that deliberate invasion of a suspect’s right to legal professional privilege should generally lead to a stay; it may do but category 2 cases were always a balancing exercise.
The use of undercover officers in covert operations often leads to accusations of abuse of process on the basis that the officers have entrapped or encouraged an offence to take place. This aspect of abuse deserves a whole article to itself but, in very short order, the Judge has to look to see if the undercover officer has ‘overstepped the mark’; R v Loosely; Att. General’s Ref (No 3 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 2060, HL.
Disclosure
The area of disclosure has always been the most contentious area of criminal litigation and most of the great miscarriage of justice cases have turned on failures to disclose by the prosecution. The House of Lords laid down final and conclusive guidance on disclosure and Public Interest Immunity applications in the case R v H & C [2004] 2 AC 134 (the authors represented ‘H’).
However, it is a sad fact that today prosecutors are still not getting disclosure right. With the pressure on the prosecution not to give the defence the ‘warehouse keys’ there has been an over analysis of Defence Statements and a willingness to conclude that no further disclosure is necessary.
In a case called R v O [2007] EWCA Crim 3483 a Crown Court Judge was so exasperated by H.M. Custom’s failure to properly respond to the defence’s proper applications for disclosure he stayed the case as an abuse of process. The prosecution appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The case was a fraud allegation where O was simply asking for business documents held by customs after they had searched his premises. Customs had been taking the line that most of the material neither assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution case and was therefore not disclosable and refused to even let the defence have sight of the outer covers of the documents. The defence were adamant that the business documents could assist. The Judge was swayed by the obstructive nature of Customs, he did not even make a decision on the merits of the material in question but was pushed in the end to saying that Customs had relied too heavily on the precise rule of law on disclosure, to the extent that they were inflexible and obstructive. His Honour said “if the prosecution approach the case without concession then they can expect none” and with that he threw the case out.
In a case involving indecent images of children, the defence solicitors wished to view the material and certain directions were given by the court regarding disclosure. The prosecution were not content with the security arrangements for the viewing and storage of this sensitive material and refused to obey the order, the indictment was stayed; R v R (L) [2010] 2 Cr. App. R 9, CA. The Lord Chief Justice noted that there will be cases even were the defendant is in custody where the prosecution will have to provide the material on CD so it can be examined by the defendant with his lawyers in prison with undertakings by the lawyers as to the use of the material.
The abuse of process doctrine also applies to confiscation proceedings, though to a more limited degree. The Court of Appeal has confirmed the Crown Court’s jurisdiction to stay confiscation proceedings where, in limited cases, the Crown’s application for confiscation amounted to oppression: R v Morgan & Bygrave [2008] EWCA Crim 1323 (20/6/08), para 27. In that case the defendant had substantially repaid the victim and the confiscation proceedings in effect punished him twice over. However, the Court of Appeal has since re-iterated that confiscation proceedings are by design draconian and cases where such proceedings amount to an abuse will be rare indeed; see R (BERR) v Lowe [2009] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 81, see now R v Nelson & Others [2010] 1 Cr. App. R (S) 82.
Conclusion
Abuse of process applications should not be made lightly. However, they can arise in any number of situations – too many to properly deal with in this short article. What is required in any abuse application is material and authorities upon which such an application can be properly supported. This usually means early and focussed pressure on disclosure where a possible abuse of process application might be made. In order to persuade a court to stay an indictment a defendant has to have the ammunition to support the application. That means the lawyers have to be alive to the possibilities that might arise in any case and think long-term; e.g. early written, and properly justified, requests for material – when months later the Crown have failed to comply then the ammunition is starting to build up enabling the defence to submit that the defence are trying their best but facing difficulties form the prosecution. In other words if there is any hint of an abuse of process application then it must be kept at the forefront of the defending mind from the very outset.
Jonathan Lennon is a Barrister specialising in serious and complex criminal defence case at 23 Essex Street Chambers in London. He is a contributing author to Covert Human Intelligence Sources, (2008 Waterside Press) and has extensive experience in all aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Aziz Rahman is a Solicitor- Advocate and Partner at the leading Criminal Defence firm Rahman Ravelli Solicitors, specialising in Human Rights, Financial Crime and Large Scale Conspiracies/Serious crime. Rahman Ravelli are members of the Specialist Fraud Panel and have recently been ranked by Legal 500 as an 'excellent' firm with Aziz Rahman being described as 'first class and very experienced'.
Our Services
Serious Fraud
Serious Crime
Covert Surveillance Defence
Civil Recovery
Assets Forfeiture
Arrested or Investigated?
Health and Safety Solicitors
homepagewelcome»
about Rahman Ravellilearn more»
serviceswhat we offer»
contact usget in touch»
articleslegal articles»
newspress releases»
recruitmentwork for us»
Home »
Legal Articles »
Abuse of Process
Browse by Date
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
May 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
February 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
April 2005
March 2005
January 2005
October 2004
July 2004
Abuse of Process1 October 2012
When will a Judge throw a case out of Court because of the behaviour of the Prosecution?
There are many reasons why a Judge might conclude that it would not be proper for the courts to be used to prosecute a defendant. For example, delay in bringing proceedings, manipulation of the court’s procedures, entrapment by police officers, loss of evidence and so on. The prosecution facing an abuse of process application will always argue that the Judge can ensure fairness by, for example, excluding any evidence which is causing dispute, or by warning the jury that the defendant has been unable to call certain evidence because it has been destroyed – in other words anything except throw the case out before it even starts.
Leading Case
One of the leading cases in this area is R (Ebrahim) v Feltham Magistrates’ Court; Mouat v DPP [2001] 2 Cr. App. R, 23, DC. The High Court considered the situation where the two defendants, in two separate cases had asserted that video evidence would have assisted their defences but where the video material was no longer available. In Mr. Mouat’s case he was videoed by an unmarked police car exceeding the speed limit. His defence was that he was trying to get away from a driver who was driving dangerously close behind him and he had no idea it was a police car; i.e. duress of circumstances. Once he stopped he was shown the video by the officers and had the choice to accept a penalty or go to trial – he elected trial. By the time of the trial the tapes in the police car had been re-used. The High Court quashed Mr. Mouat’s conviction. Mr. Ebrahim was not so fortunate. Ebrahim’s case concerned un-seized CCTV material. On the facts of that case the Court found that the defendant had a fair trial eventhough the CCTV material was missing. The Court of Appeal said that when considering an abuse application on this basis a Judge must consider what the duty was to preserve any video material. If the court finds that there is no such duty for the material in question to be seized or preserved then there can be no stay of the prosecution. If, alternatively, there is such a duty, and it has been breached, then the court can only consider staying the indictment as an exceptional measure as the trial process itself can remedy the problem; e.g. by the Judge warning the jury about missing evidence, or by him excluding certain other evidence and so on. If, however, the police or the prosecution appear to have acted with “bad faith or at the very least some serious fault” then a stay may be more readily granted.
Two Categories of Abuse
In considering the development of the case law it is clear that the Higher Courts will sometimes use the abuse of process jurisdiction to effectively ‘punish’ the police or prosecution for errors or faults. This ‘serious fault’ limb of the abuse of process jurisdiction highlights the way abuse applications fall into two broad categories; Category 1 cases where the defendant cannot receive a fair trial, and Category 2 cases where it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried: see R v Beckford (1996) 1 Cr App R 94, 101. Thus, if evidence that should have been seized by the police but now cannot be obtained, but would have been helpful to the defence, then that is a ‘Category 1’ situation and the Judge could, exceptionally, stay the trial on the basis that the defendant could not get a fair trial.
If, however, the police had the material but maliciously destroyed it, then that would be a ‘Category 2’ case and even though the defendant could get a fair trial it would be unfair to try him – in as much as it would offend our sense of justice and bring the administration of the criminal justice system into disrepute to do so, see e.g. R v Mullen [1999] 1 AC 42, HL.
R v Grant [2005] 2 Cr. App. R 28 is a Category 2 case. The police eavesdropped on the communications of a suspect and his solicitor. The Court held that unlawful acts of such a kind, amounting to a deliberate violation of a suspect’s right to legal privilege were such an affront to the integrity of the justice system that the prosecution was rendered abusive. However, this case has now been expressly disapproved by the Privy Council in Curtis Warren v Att. General for Jersey [2011] 2 ALL ER 513, PC. In that case the police had placed an audio probe in the defendant's hire car which would be driven through a number of overseas European countries. The police knew that permission from those countries had been refused for the use of such devices but went ahead anyway. The consequent abuse of process application failed, a decision upheld on appeal. Much turned on the facts of the case but the Council found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to say that deliberate invasion of a suspect’s right to legal professional privilege should generally lead to a stay; it may do but category 2 cases were always a balancing exercise.
The use of undercover officers in covert operations often leads to accusations of abuse of process on the basis that the officers have entrapped or encouraged an offence to take place. This aspect of abuse deserves a whole article to itself but, in very short order, the Judge has to look to see if the undercover officer has ‘overstepped the mark’; R v Loosely; Att. General’s Ref (No 3 of 2000) [2001] 1 WLR 2060, HL.
Disclosure
The area of disclosure has always been the most contentious area of criminal litigation and most of the great miscarriage of justice cases have turned on failures to disclose by the prosecution. The House of Lords laid down final and conclusive guidance on disclosure and Public Interest Immunity applications in the case R v H & C [2004] 2 AC 134 (the authors represented ‘H’).
However, it is a sad fact that today prosecutors are still not getting disclosure right. With the pressure on the prosecution not to give the defence the ‘warehouse keys’ there has been an over analysis of Defence Statements and a willingness to conclude that no further disclosure is necessary.
In a case called R v O [2007] EWCA Crim 3483 a Crown Court Judge was so exasperated by H.M. Custom’s failure to properly respond to the defence’s proper applications for disclosure he stayed the case as an abuse of process. The prosecution appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The case was a fraud allegation where O was simply asking for business documents held by customs after they had searched his premises. Customs had been taking the line that most of the material neither assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution case and was therefore not disclosable and refused to even let the defence have sight of the outer covers of the documents. The defence were adamant that the business documents could assist. The Judge was swayed by the obstructive nature of Customs, he did not even make a decision on the merits of the material in question but was pushed in the end to saying that Customs had relied too heavily on the precise rule of law on disclosure, to the extent that they were inflexible and obstructive. His Honour said “if the prosecution approach the case without concession then they can expect none” and with that he threw the case out.
In a case involving indecent images of children, the defence solicitors wished to view the material and certain directions were given by the court regarding disclosure. The prosecution were not content with the security arrangements for the viewing and storage of this sensitive material and refused to obey the order, the indictment was stayed; R v R (L) [2010] 2 Cr. App. R 9, CA. The Lord Chief Justice noted that there will be cases even were the defendant is in custody where the prosecution will have to provide the material on CD so it can be examined by the defendant with his lawyers in prison with undertakings by the lawyers as to the use of the material.
The abuse of process doctrine also applies to confiscation proceedings, though to a more limited degree. The Court of Appeal has confirmed the Crown Court’s jurisdiction to stay confiscation proceedings where, in limited cases, the Crown’s application for confiscation amounted to oppression: R v Morgan & Bygrave [2008] EWCA Crim 1323 (20/6/08), para 27. In that case the defendant had substantially repaid the victim and the confiscation proceedings in effect punished him twice over. However, the Court of Appeal has since re-iterated that confiscation proceedings are by design draconian and cases where such proceedings amount to an abuse will be rare indeed; see R (BERR) v Lowe [2009] 2 Cr. App. R (S) 81, see now R v Nelson & Others [2010] 1 Cr. App. R (S) 82.
Conclusion
Abuse of process applications should not be made lightly. However, they can arise in any number of situations – too many to properly deal with in this short article. What is required in any abuse application is material and authorities upon which such an application can be properly supported. This usually means early and focussed pressure on disclosure where a possible abuse of process application might be made. In order to persuade a court to stay an indictment a defendant has to have the ammunition to support the application. That means the lawyers have to be alive to the possibilities that might arise in any case and think long-term; e.g. early written, and properly justified, requests for material – when months later the Crown have failed to comply then the ammunition is starting to build up enabling the defence to submit that the defence are trying their best but facing difficulties form the prosecution. In other words if there is any hint of an abuse of process application then it must be kept at the forefront of the defending mind from the very outset.
Jonathan Lennon is a Barrister specialising in serious and complex criminal defence case at 23 Essex Street Chambers in London. He is a contributing author to Covert Human Intelligence Sources, (2008 Waterside Press) and has extensive experience in all aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Aziz Rahman is a Solicitor- Advocate and Partner at the leading Criminal Defence firm Rahman Ravelli Solicitors, specialising in Human Rights, Financial Crime and Large Scale Conspiracies/Serious crime. Rahman Ravelli are members of the Specialist Fraud Panel and have recently been ranked by Legal 500 as an 'excellent' firm with Aziz Rahman being described as 'first class and very experienced'.
Print Article
Search throughout the website
Become a member
Our Serious Fraud Services
Our Serious Crime Services
Recruitment
Contact contact details in brief
Rahman Ravelli Solicitors Yorkshire
Roma House,
59 Pellon Lane,
Halifax,
West Yorkshire,
HX1 5BE,
DX 16001 HX1,
United Kingdom.
Phone: +44-(0)1422 346666.
Fax: +44 (0)1422 430526
Rapid Response Team 24 Hour Emergency Contact: 0800 5593500.
enquiries@rahmanravelli.co.uk
» full contact details
Rahman Ravelli Solicitors London
1 Fetter Lane,
London,
Greater London,
EC4A 1BR,
United Kingdom.
Phone: +44-(0)203 4405 515.
Rapid Response Team 24 Hour Emergency Contact: 0800 5593500.
enquiries@rahmanravelli.co.uk
» full contact details
» terms and conditions» privacy policy
Copyright © Rahman Ravelli Solicitors
2013
All rights reserved.
Web Design Yorkshire
Rahman Ravelli Solicitors Ltd (C. Reg. No.6295702) are leading Criminal Defence Lawyers regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (www.sra.org.uk). We are Solicitors specialising in the defence of Serious Fraud, Serious and
Complex Crime and Asset Forfeiture (including SOCA (Serious and Organised Crime Agency) Civil Recovery), Nationwide. We are Specialist Panel Members (Fraud and VHCC) able to undertake the most Complex of cases.
Sunday, 27 October 2013
Thursday, 24 October 2013
VCGLR/ Accountability /Corrupt Adam Toma/ Victorian Government/ Dennis Napthine
NSW has ICAC as a watchdog, Victoria has IBAC However the Commonwealth or Federal Government Agencies have no such watchdog.Senator Xenophon has called upon one to be established.
It is a requirement that systemic corrupt conduct and corruption be referred by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to the relevant Minister or in the case of ITSA or AFSA the Attorney General. The Commonwealth Ombudsdsman failed to comply with this. Clearly this is why there is no accountability in Commonwealth Government Department.
Veronique Ingram and the senior Management at ITSA have already been referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Alison Larkins who was the Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman after Allan Asher ripped his skirt off and resigned , made a clear and deliberate decision to protect atrocious systemic corrupt conduct and corruption in this Commonwealth Government Department
Despite continuous efforts to expose this , Veronique Ingram and Adam Toma asked the Australian Federal Police to protect this practice. Nuckley Succar of the AFP is the Officer now trying to help Veronique Ingram to also try and cover this up.
Adam Toma was the National Enforcement Manager at ITSA or AFSA. Although he was responsible for Enforcement he protected fraud and also protected non compliance of the Bankruptcy Act.
However , even more disturbing is the corrupt Adam Toma has
It is also very clear that the Victorian Government and VCGLR protects corruption
Wednesday, 23 October 2013
ADFA Skype sex scandal/ S 474 Crimes Act
Considering Daniel and Dylan received no jail time after being charged under S 474 of the crimes ACT I am wondering what sentence a judge would give me after also being charged also under S474 of the Crimes Act for exposing Systemic corrupt conduct and corruption by Public servants on the internet.
May God Bless the Australian Federal Police for trying their best to fuck me over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADFA Skype sex scandal: Daniel McDonald, Dylan Deblaquiere avoid jail time
Updated
The two men at the centre of the Australian Defence Force Academy Skype scandal have avoided jail time.
Daniel
McDonald, 21, secretly filmed himself having sex with a female cadet
and streamed it live to Dylan Deblaquiere, 21, in a nearby dorm room at
ADFA in Canberra in 2011.Earlier this year a jury found the pair guilty of sending offensive material over the internet without consent.
McDonald was also found guilty of an act of indecency.
In sentencing today in the ACT Supreme Court, Acting Justice John Nield rejected jail time, taking into account the men's ages and prospects of rehabilitation.
"Is imprisonment the only appropriate sentence? I have given this question anxious thought. I have wavered between answering yes and no," he said.
Instead he handed McDonald two 12-month good behaviour bonds, to be served concurrently, and Deblaquiere a single 12-month good behaviour bond. He warned they will go to jail if they breach their orders.
"There has been much media attention to these offences and to the trial. General deterrence has been achieved," he said.
Acting Justice Nield noted that while the Skype transmission was non-violent, published only to a limited audience and was not recorded, it was a substantial violation of the victim's right to privacy.
"To engage in sexual activity in a private setting, one expects that sexual activity to be private. No one expects it to be transmitted to the world at large or even close friends," he said.
"[McDonald] acted intentionally and deliberately to degrade her. He broke his word, breached their friendship, exposed her to humiliation and ridicule. His offence falls above the middle of the range of offences of its kind."
While detailing the facts of the case, Acting Justice Nield noted the pair's actions were vulgar and they had not expressed remorse.
"Neither offender said anything to the complainant when what had happened became known to show regret or remorse for what they did," he said.
"Neither stood up in court after the complainant read her victim impact statement to say they regret what they did."
Monday, 21 October 2013
Knuckley Succar AFP Police/ Protecting corruption
So today at 2.10pm Nuckley Succar came to serve me one single document.
Again , as I went to sign for the document I was knock back by the smell of Succars breath. This is not the first time I have mentioned this.
I asked Succar , considering he was aware that he was to serve documents on me today why he had sent AFP Officers to my work to ask me again for an interview to try and set me up to protect systemic corruption and corrupt Public servants. He looked at me blank as if he did not know what to say. Clearly I am not going to put myself into a situation where Succar from the Australian Federal Police is attempting to set me up and try and obtain false evidence to protect Veronique Ingram, Matthew Osborne, Mark Findlay and the corrupt Adam Toma who is now director Gaming and Liquor Approval.
So today at 2.10pm Nuckley Succar came to serve me one single document.
Again , as I went to sign for the document I was knock back by the smell of Succars breath. This is not the first time I have mentioned this.
I asked Succar , considering he was aware that he was to serve documents on me today why he had sent AFP Officers to my work to ask me again for an interview to try and set me up to protect systemic corruption and corrupt Public servants. He looked at me blank as if he did not know what to say. Clearly I am not going to put myself into a situation where Succar from the Australian Federal Police is attempting to set me up and try and obtain false evidence to protect Veronique Ingram, Matthew Osborne, Mark Findlay and the corrupt Adam Toma who is now director Gaming and Liquor Approval.
OCC investigation Policy/
Background Investigations
Comptroller’s Licensing Manual
Washington,
DC
April 2009Background Investigations
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................1
Applicability .........................................................................................................1
Key Policies ..........................................................................................................1
Summary of Process ..............................................................................................1
Specific Requirements...........................................................................................2
Standard Background Checks ........................................................................2
Foreign Nationals’ Background Checks..........................................................3
Background Informatio
n Checks on Japane
se Nationals .................................3
Optional Background Checks
.....................................................
...............4
Fingerprint Cards/IRS
Tax Check Waiver........................................................4
Waivers .........................................................................................................4
Adverse Information ......................................................................................5
Change in Bank Control ................................................................................5
Charters and Federal Br
anches or Agencies....................................................5
Depository Institution Management
Interlocks Act (DIMIA)............................6
Convicted Persons .........................................................................................7
Procedures ..............................................................................................................8
Appendix A: Management
Review Guid
elines .......................................................10
Appendix B: Join
t Statement ..................................................................................12
References....................................
...................................................................15
ii
Introduction
This booklet should be
used together with other booklets of the
Comptroller’s
Licensing Manual.
Users of this booklet also s
hould refer to the “General
Policies and Procedures” (
GPP
) booklet for discu
ssion of general filing
instructions and proced
ures. Background investigations are performed
routinely on filings discu
ssed in the following book
lets: “Change in Bank
Control,” “Changes in Directors and
Senior Executive Officers,” “Charters,”
“Conversions,” “Director Waivers,” “Fa
ilure Acquisitions,” and “Federal
Branches and Agencies.”
Applicability
This booklet incorporates
policies and procedures used
by the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC) to
review the background of
persons and certain
companies (filers) interest
ed in entering the na
tional banking system,
acquiring control of a natio
nal bank, and/or influencin
g its operations. This
booklet details the standard mandatory
checks required for U.S. citizens and
foreign nationals; discusses additional
standard mandatory checks for foreign
nationals; and describe
s other optional backgro
und checks for certain
applications, notices, and notices requi
red by Section 914 of the Financial
Institutions Reform,
Recovery and Enforcement Act
of 1989 (FIRREA) or 12
CFR 5.51.
Key Policies
For certain corporate filings, the OCC pe
rforms background investigations on
persons proposed as organi
zers, senior executive officers, directors, and
principal shareholders of national banks,
or as managers of federal branches
or agencies. Those investigations ar
e conducted to de
termine if those
proposed have the experi
ence, competence, integr
ity, character, financial
ability, and willingness to direct and/or l
ead a bank’s affairs in a safe, sound,
and legal manner. The OCC will scru
tinize closely a filer whose previous
experience is tied to a failed or problem
financial institution or other situation
that may raise questions about pers
onal or fiduciary integrity.
Summary of Process
Whenever a filer seeks entry in
to the national banking sy
stem as an organizer,
senior executive officer, director, or principal shareholder (for example,
proposing to acquire 10
percent or more of the
stock) of a proposed new
national bank, or as a manager of
a federal branch or agency, the OCC
generally requires that person to submit an
Interagency Biographical and
Financial Report
with the appropriate filing. Th
e OCC also generally requires
submitting those reports with the follow
ing types of filings:
changes in bank
1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)