May 17, 2012

The Case for a Financial WikiLeaks | Ian Fraser

The Case for a Financial WikiLeaks

May 15th, 2012 (edited May 16th, 2012)

The greatest barriers to financial whistleblowing are social and economic, not legal. Fear of being shunned by colleagues, passed over for promotion, bullied and harrassed, summarily dismissed and even shut out of Wall Street or the City for life plays a big part in dissuading executives who become aware of crimes and misdemeanours inside their organisations from blowing the whistle.

Occasionally, as we saw with Greg Smith and his remarkable New York Times op-ed Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs, an employee’s conscience gets the better of them. But fear of being ostracised for “spoiling the party”, coupled with an attachment to the high pay that a financial career can bring (you might call it ‘moral cowardice’) is sufficient to persuade the vast majority of putative whistleblowers to keep schtoom.

That’s why I believe we need a financial version of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. It would protect employees from management retribution and eliminate the social barriers to speaking out. There are already several leak sites available (check out the Leak site directory).

WikiLeaks has previously been used for financial leaks relating to the banks Julius Baer and Barclays, and in 2011 there was speculation that it was sitting on a treasure trove of incriminating information that might bring down Bank of America (In the end the emails, published at bankofamericasuck.com and here, turned out to be something of a damp squib. Dating from November 2010, the emails suggest that employees of Balboa Insurance Group, a subsidiary of Bank of America, removed documents from loan files relating to a group of insured properties).

WikiLeaks though, has mostly made a name for itself in exposing political controversies. People don’t predominantly think of it as the place to go to find out about corporate wrongdoing, and corporate disclosures on the site run the risk of being drowned out by the drone of government abuse.

One organization that does specialize in corporate disclosure is

Anonymous Analytics, whose focus is on ”acquiring information through unconventional means” (a.k.a. hacking and subterfuge) and presenting it in the form of investment analysis reports. The group, whose stated aim is to “provide the public with investigative reports exposing corrupt companies” and whose team includes “analysts, forensic accountants, statisticians, computer experts, and lawyers from various jurisdictions and backgrounds” caused a stir last September when it exposed alleged large-scale fraud at Chaoda Modern Agriculture, a Hong Kong-listed company. Anonymous Analytics claimed that Chaoda was:-

“overstating its cash balance, exaggerating its revenue, and falsifying its financial statements.”

Last week Anonymous Analytics initiated coverage of another Hong Kong-listed company Huaboa International. In a 44-page report entitled “Smoke and Mirrors”, it alleged Huabao overpaid for several companies acquired from its chairwoman, Chu Lam Yiu. The research note also questioned the veracity of Huabao’s financial statement and performance data. The report stated that:-

“We believe management is materially overstating Huabao’s earning power … [Huaboa International] is a pump and dump scheme with the primary objective of enriching its chairwoman.”

While Anonymous Analystics specializes in ‘primary research’, it also briefly offered a dropbox facility for would-be whistleblowers. This was recently closed down. The offshoot of the hacker group claimed this was because it had been unable to handle the volume of tips, comments and emails it had received.

Organisations such Anonymous Analytics are firmly focused on overt cases of corporate fraud and headline-grabbing controversies. Nevertheless, while having channels to expose criminality is important, there are many other equally valid reasons to create a financial leaks site.

WikiLeaks’s release of the US Embassy Cables, which commenced in November 2010, didn’t provide much sensational news, but it did provide a rare window into the normally opaque worlds of diplomacy and espionage and the conflict between the State department and more nefarious arms of the US state. It will be an invaluable resource for academic researchers and journalists for years to come. But there are few, if any, such open windows into the financial sector.

The Safe Deposit Box: A Tool for Transparency

This, coupled with the inadequacy of most financial regulators around the world, is why a specialised financial leak site is so badly needed.

Here’s my back-of-the-envelope sketch for the Safe Deposit Box, a site that would improve transparency in financial institutions (including banks, insurers, funds, brokers) and commodity trading outfits, by providing a channel that would encourage internal leaks. It could be curated by individuals with financial expertise, such that information leaked could be vetted for accuracy and presented correctly (something that non-specialist leak sites would be unable to do). The site could be split into two main divisions with different purposes:

A whistleblowing section to allow employees of banks and other financial institutions to expose dubious behaviour, including instances of financial crime, market manipulation, insider trading, ‘creative’ accounting and rogue trading.
A transparency initiative focused on shedding light on the inner workings of financial institutions. This section would encourage employees to contribute information such as organisational structures, divisional strategies, risk exposures, compensation, and other information that helps to break the near impenetrable wall of secrecy (omertà) large financial institutions frequently enjoy.

Many people intuitively understand the value of division one, but division two is perhaps harder to justify. What’s the point of transparency for transparency’s sake, some might ask? I would argue that banks and other financial institutions still enjoy huge political clout (and indeed some are owned by the public), yet citizens have virtually no insight into their inner workings and strategies, including who they are lending to, how they treat distressed assets, or their level of speculation on energy and food prices. (see “Barclays shame award“)

For example, I suspect that the residents of Chicago do not have the faintest idea of how a Morgan Stanley consortium came to own the city’s parking meters. I also suspect the residents of Edinburgh have no idea how a RBS consortium came to own the city’s main hospital, the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary.

At a systemic level, the very opacity of financial transactions increases systemic risk, which in turn has a massive impact broader society. Providing a channel for financial employees to shed light on their organisations would have: (1) a democratic empowerment benefit and (2) A research and regulation benefit, providing more material for citizens, academics and regulators to understand and monitor the financial sector.

The transparency initiative could be split into specific research domains that are of particular concern (or ought to be) to journalists, researchers, campaigners, regulators, and even some politicians. For example, domains could include:

A high-pay transparency programme to gather leaked payrolls, compensation reports and other material to help in monitoring financial incentive systems.
A tax haven programme to gather lists of subsidiaries, offshore transactions and other material to help shed light on tax avoidance systems.
A loan transparency programme to gather information on loan portfolios of the banks’ corporate banking divisions, thereby helping keep tabs on socially and environmentally irresponsible lending
A programme gathering information on banks’ dealings with Polically Exposed Persons (including deposed dictators and their families), authoritarian regimes, and dodgy individuals
A systemic risk programme gathering info on prop trading levels, interbank risk exposures, and shadow banking systems
A programme collecting information on ‘mis-selling’ and poor customer service (aka. treating clients as muppets)

I don’t want to be flippant. I also accept that actively encouraging breaches of confidentiality might border on being illegal. Yet confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements are often used by banks to bury frauds and other issues of concern, whose victims are often outside the institution that perpetrates them.

For example, in my research into the potentially damaging effects of commodity speculation, I hit a brick wall when seeking to establish how much banks earn from their agricultural commodity trading desks. They simply don’t report it, and stonewall all requests for information.

I recognise that that leak sites are far from perfect mechanisms and that innumerable issues would have to be overcome before a site along the lines I describe could be launched.

These would include how it would be structured and who would be permitted to access the information. Would it be better to use a centralised WikiLeaks structure, or something more decentralised along the lines OpenLeaks (set up by Wikileaks defectors, but yet to launch)? Might it be better to consider something more conciliatory and collaborative, more like Wikipedia, a financial commons that would allow people with financial expertise to freely and anonymously contribute?

What I do know though, is that financial secrecy benefits a very small

section of society, but harms a very large section of society, and I’m also sure that there are a great many financial workers who would love the opportunity to spread the love by spreading the knowledge. There again, there’s always the risk that such a site might also attract the attention of the financial blockade.

The original version of this article was headlined The Safe Deposit Box: Creating a Financial Wikileaks. Written by Brett Scott, who operates as a consultant bridging the gap between finance and those involved in socio-environmental justice and international development. He has also written for the Guardian, the Ecologist, New Internationalist and Open Democracy. Brett blogs at www.suitpossum.blogspot.com and tweets as @Suitpossum. He is a fellow of the WWF/ICAEW Finance Innovation Lab.

~ What must be done next ~

Website: http://www.MoveToAmend.org Mission: We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to: * Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. * Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count. * Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments. Company Overview: On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.

Proposed change to the US Constitution

We the People

I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent

A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.

B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.

C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.

D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.

E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.

F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.

G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.

H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.

I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.

J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.

K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.

L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.

II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States

A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.

B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.

C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.

D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.

E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.

III. Independent Branch

A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.

B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.

C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.

D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.

E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.

F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.

IV. Prosecutorial Branch

A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.

B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.

C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.

D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.

E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.

V. Judicial Branch

A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.

B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.

C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.

D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.

VI. Legislative Branch

A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.

B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.

D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.

F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.

G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.

VII. Executive Branch

A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.

B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.

D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.

E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.

F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.

G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.

H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.

I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.

J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.

K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.

L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.

M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.

N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.

O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.

P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.

Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.

LadyBroadoak Visionary Planetary Healing Tutorial

May 17, 2012