Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

As previously threatened (?) or promised (see Twitter image, below next quotes), I re-allocated about one-third of my previous post (published April 19, 2022), the extended preview section, then, on reconsidering, the whole section on the main topic it discussed: why I believe that topic relates to USA’s domestic violence advocacy Infrastructure.  The topic is BCCI – Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

I’ve been writing about the DV infrastructure and its parts with emphasis on business entity and operations (and relationships to the federal and state governments which funds it) for years, and still am. However the same could be said of other public/private infrastructures based on other causes.  It’s a symptom of how we do business in the USA:  extreme collaborations between private tax-exempt interests and governments (which are also tax-exempt), in ways that make fiscal accountability to the public (or internally, I’m sure), near-impenetrable, if not (overall) impossible. 

This post is:

USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW” — about 7,500 words + about 500 more I just added April 22…

To understand why I believe the problems with USA’s DV-response infrastructure (NOT just its operations or administration of the structure) is comparable with BCCI, you should grasp the basic facts on BCCI operations and why both the USA and England had issues with it.

Although BCCI was in part a bank, both systems definitely receive and move funds through a wide network and many types of entities; both seek to exert influence outside their own jurisdictions, in ways that are less than, ah, “accountable,” leaving it (the DV infrastructure) open to UNDUE influence by private actors.  (I’m no accountant or financial advisor but if you think about it… )

I’ve added to the content I copied from previous post links to two more indicators of what was so “major” about the BCCI (1992, news; 1999, an opinion by the judge finally closing the criminal case (USA) indicate how far-reaching this scandal was and in how many countries). The post already holds several more, with quotes, below — it’s a substantial reason for this post!  I close the post actually, with a link to the BCCI Liquidators suing The Bank of England — ironically (?) an extinct criminal bank suing a very much alive one for failing to catch on earlier.

Seems to me it was a tough few decades for the Bank of England, and BCCI’s operations contributed….

Anything in ANY way resembling BCCI’s operations still around and functioning within or under the name of “for” government (and thus for the people), should be scrutinized where questions continue to arise (or efforts to make sure those questions do NOT arise continue decade after decade).  This would all come under the basic theme of, understanding government operations (and money systems).

Some people grow up in households where this is a given, with examples and mentoring, and connections to others who will provide more of that information.  I wasn’t, and it seems public schools USA (K-12) have little interest in explaining this to future adults, nor do academics or many people in specialist professions who, so long as they can maintain employment and look forward to a retirement (and consulting or other entrepreneurship beyond retirement, in addition to (say, if civil servants) those pensions) don’t really need that understanding.  I don’t believe all lawyers need it, and I’m sure most psychologists don’t either.  The ones who need it the most are those who are vulnerable and those bounced from job to job — and often through domestic violence, or subsequent to forced engagement in our family court systems through separating from such violence.

Before I get to those two quotes (and my Twitter thread), … I also kept thinking how right after all this, after The Bank of England also shut down BCCI in 1991 [not a simple or a single-event process…], then the next year, 1992, George Soros (℅ Stanley Druckenmiller) bet big against the Bank of England.  British currency was already struggling and had joined the EU (about then).  With all that’s happened in the last few two to three years, remember a few decades later, Brexit?  (These topics are not mentioned in this post outside the next inset:)

C.  BCCI’s Connection to General Noriega

BCCI again came to the fore in 1987 and 1988 in connection with investigations into narcotics trafficking by Panamanian General Manuel Noriega. It was known that Noriega had a banking relationship with BCCI and First American. Federal prosecutors, and then committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, investigated allegations that BCCI was laundering Noriega’s drug proceeds. BCCI was indicted in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida and subsequently pled guilty to federal money laundering charges. Certain BCCI employees also were indicted, tried, and convicted on money laundering charges. See United States v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1992) (affirming convictions in large part).

On a lighter note, I often make alterations after seeing a published post, that I didn’t see or have the patience to make beforehand (there comes a point when you’re just DONE with the writing, not willing to work it any further, and the only solution/relief is to publish):

Wow. I JUST published a post (https://t.co/ez5SlO4Pic) with a huge, multi-section, multi-color preview, and I hate !! how it looks. After a stretch & more caffeine I’m thinking to just grab that whole “preview” and repost it today — (4th imge- 5/26/2019 post) pic.twitter.com/04bnEpcse2

— SheLooksItUp: AbsolutelyUncommonAnalysis DV FamCts (@LetUsGetHonest) April 19, 2022

(The eight-tweet thread covers a few more topics, with some media; worth a look…It reads “1 Reply” but click on the image to see the thread).

The second large section (more and more extended quotes on “BCCI” to explain what I mean when comparing the US DV system to it) occurs in a completely separate, second box with this background color.. The division is marked clearly; it’s all one content delivered in two different installments only because part came as “preview” and another part from what was being previewed. Some pronoun references (i.e., “this post”) may refer to April 19th, while others are to April 21. The move (not the original writing) was done quickly because I have other posts to move from pipeline to published.

This material is from:

How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”)

and is now here, which, to identify its main content, I’m calling:

USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW” — about 6,600 words including that Twitter reference above)

I’d posted on the BCCI before (2017); why include it again? (Eight paragraphs, informal):

I felt a reminder of what the BCCI case was and to identified direct correlations (I’d also been making in 2017) to specific nonprofits lobbying for H.Con.Res.72 which is being cited (repeatedly) as the success story underlying what’s also supposed to be considered another 2019, then 2022, success: reauthorization of the Violence Against Women’s Act to better accommodate those who wish to help their friends and colleagues (self-referring, not too hard to identify a basic cast of characters) get in on the existing judicial and custody evaluator trainings, i.e., Kayden’s Law add-on.

This V.A.W.A. version has been tweaked to produce something IN the family courts those family courts are guaranteed by design to NOT produce, no matter how many more judges are trained — they’ve already been groomed, mentored and trained (as to Family Courts) by a variety of private nonprofits — nonprofits whose main themes seem to be the points people and organizations “(sic)”** who support  “Kayden’s Law” add-ons say is the problem (can you spell “domestic violence and coercive control,” “child abuse, trauma and parental alienation” and of course “Why they DO that” when “they” means batterers. **..when it comes to #NFVLgwu and NSPC (see recent posts; neither is an entity).

IF these (especially parental alienation, or failure to understand coercive control) is the problem, the most likely source of that problem, logically, might be how these judges have already been trained and by/whom, in addition to the venue (family courts, per se) itself. It doesn’t take TOO hard a look to see these courts weren’t ever designed to Keep Kids Safe or Protect Kids (or their parents).  The main purpose (the venue) was to add more counseling, behavioral health therapists, and programming to (first) keep people OUT of divorce courts to start with (if married) later (second) to keep them from repeatedly returning to the same courts (the routine labeled “high-conflict”) — which, predictably, generated more and more of a need for those returns.

While I’ve concluded this (as I just said: that the courts weren’t designed to Keep Kids Safe; more likely to keep abusers and batterers and other criminals safe from prosecution so as to maintain the profits…)  from a long, HARD look at their claimed designers and those designers blueprints (not to mention the roadkill results), and repeatedly posted it, it didn’t take me a decade, or two, or even half a decade, to figure it out.  I did it done, broke, sometimes on the run, being often threatened with (forced) homelessness and in and out of all kinds of trauma-producing situations relating to family courts failure, and surrounding advocacy organizations simple refusal, to deal with (i.e., HELP), past the “triage” stage — issuing that initial restraining order.  For long periods without even access to a laptop (for a long time, taking buses in areas that had poor transportation to and from libraries which limited usage to an hour or two only… For a season of my life I was constantly arguing for internet access when a bus or commuter train was late, making me also 10 minutes late for a computer station reservation).

This venue is now and has been historically (see the history of AFCC for just one indicator) an assembly line for court-connected corporations / “franchises” that derive their income streams from judicial referrals, judicial consultancies, and marketing curricula which (so it seems) doesn’t work any better on abusive parents coming through the system than it has (to date) worked on the judges who sent them there.

What Family Court DOES successfully do is prolong and maintain conditions of conflicts and mutually-contradictory ideologies on WHAT causes (violence, abuse, poverty, etc.) — which both public (governments) and private (individuals going through it, or with relatives going through it)  must pay for, to the point they often cannot even support themselves properly, and certainly in no normal maintain employment and functional work history way.

[Originally the next paragraphs were much closer to the top of this post!]

Knowledgeable mothers and experienced lawyers not in on this training scam (=my assessment, so far) have (like me) continued to express this on-line (on Twitter) — we know that judicial training won’t remove judicial training, any more than (I went through in detail and tweeted again the other day, the same post), “mandatory arrests” for certain offences do not remove police discretion and do not create any individual entitlement to having criminals arrested, i.e., producing protection for those needing it.

But others just do not care. Others seem more expert, ‘collaborative’ and resourced, year after year, and they’re mentoring next-generation professionals within universities (George Washington University (school of law) in D.C., lately University of California-Irvine (School of Law) taking (in the case of George Washington University), so it’s said, anonymous donors to fund a center based on, pretty much, a single professor’s fatally flawed (not “flawless”) continued self-promotion (with the related “cast of characters” — basic advertising and persuasion tactics) reports that even I could dissect — and which other more analytical fathers’ rights organizations also have.

So, I reviewed the BCCI (with new summaries and resources describing its and lessons to be learned from it — even one from the International Monetary Fund library — and linked to some posts tying in the Arkansas factor, which naturally led me to the Governor/President Clinton, Senator Fulbright.

I also posted more (mostly from Wiki, but some from the Fulbright Scholars Page) on the famous senator from Arkansas’s influence, how his time at Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar as a very young man), and his later legislative and Council of Foreign Relations involvements helped shape the America we have today.  I think it’s interesting — but my previous post was complete enough without it. So, here (but with fewer background and font changes) is now a REview of what was just the other day a PREview, from.  (I did not repeat or move many tags from there which now may apply more, here).

~~ Quick post preview before of what I published April 19.  Well, maybe not that quick…~~ 

These paragraphs copied here (4/21 post) to show the correspondence between the two posts.  They are marked with a dark-red border.  The last part of this section shows where I got onto the BCCI topic:

**What’s above referred to the post published yesterday: How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words

Now I’ve ended the dark-red border because the whole section now deals with the BCCI . I was remembering when I’d written the “Arkansas” post and seeing how things were organized, that it really did remind me of the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals.”  The BCCI also had known Arkansas ties.  As anyone does, I looked up BCCI (and about Senator Fulbright)  again; one reason all investigations of ongoing or influential situations (institutions, policies, etc.), and most serious writing involves RE-search.//LGH.

Another BCCI summary from the IMF.org (International Money Fund) Library summarizes HOW it happened. It’s got an abstract,  please take a look!  I’m quoting from Chapter 19 in an entire book.

Chapter 19 BCCI: The Lessons for Banking Supervision

Author: THOMAS C. BAXTER JR.Keywords: BOOK; chapter; banking regulation roundtable; banking supervisor; master agreement;agreement; chapter 22; chapter 18; Bank supervision; Commercial banks; Credit; Securities; Global; Europe;Eastern Europe; Africa; Central and Eastern Europe

---

Abstract  In July 1991, a consortium of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the Luxembourg Monetary Institute, coordinated the closing of a multinational bank known as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The discovery of a massive and widespread fraud, perpetrated over several years, precipitated BCCI’s closure. At the time of its closure, BCCI had become a truly global bank. The fact of its closure and the reasons for it provide a particularly graphic illustration of the special difficulties inherent in supervising complex multinational banks.

Structure of BCCI  BCCI’s organizational structure was key to its avoiding consolidated supervision by any home country. The apex of the BCCI organization was the parent holding company, BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., which was chartered and headquartered in Luxembourg. Below were two principal banking subsidiaries: BCCI S.A. and BCCI (Overseas) Limited. These were chartered in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, respectively. … [details para. omitted]

In sum, out of the 72 countries in which BCCI maintained offices and did business, no single supervisory authority had an unobstructed view of BCCI’s entire landscape. Furthermore, because BCCI’s operations spanned multiple jurisdictions, the supervisors in each assumed that the other would deal with BCCI’s problems. In actuality, no one did.

In time, when BCCI’s problems were too widespread to ignore, a group of countries with major BCCI operations agreed to meet periodically as a “college of supervisors” to monitor the affairs of the bank. Even under this arrangement, however, no single supervisor had overall responsibility for the organization’s combined operations. Additionally, the group’s mandate did not allow it to provide the type of supervision needed by BCCI, and what supervision was provided was too little, too late.

Covert Presence:   BCCI had another means for evading supervision: the operation of secret subsidiaries through nominees. BCCI used this technique in countries where supervision and regulation were more rigorous or where, for whatever reason, BCCI’s presence was unwelcome. For example, in the United States …

Remember (on this blog), when H.Con.Res.72 USA was being passed (and has since become the point-of-reference to justify the current VAWA authorization with Kayden’s Law (Keeping Children Safe In Family Courts) amendment, i.e., “add more trainings of judges…”), I looked up a nonprofit with a powerful politician (inexplicably) on one of the lobbyists registered to promote H.Con.Res.72: the post was focused on the state of Arkansas. (Searching H.Con.Res.72 on my blog –>

What’s ARKANSAS** got to do with H.Con.Res.72? (Passed 2018, U.S. Congress Senses that State Courts Sorta Oughter Better Prioritize Child Safety in (and IMPROVE) Custody and Visitation Adjudications) (Published May 26, 2019]. ” (-9Ot)

I called it out then — the maze of impenetrable (entities, non-entities, multi-jurisdictions) is a quality of the DV prevention field, and the Fatherhood Promotion field both — and part of (innate to) the tax-exempt sector.  Below a section on Wisconsin CADV, I wrote (prefacing another summary of BCCI on that post):

…Then people want to know why institutions or organizations named after addressing problems in a favorite issue (cause) area don’t ever seem to successfully get to the bottom of them — or at times even address them.  JUST POSSIBLY they were not put there for that purpose in the first place!

Impenetrable mazes of non-accountability is only a problem for people seeking accountability.  It’s no problem at all for those seeking to hide influence, pay bribes, or set up evasive, networked relationships to launder money obtained illegally under some respectably framed business (including nonprofit-businesses organized for advocacy) purpose. The evasion possibility is built into the DNA of the tax-exempt system.  Add to this mega-dollars in the form of institutional (pension, state agency, etc.)) funds and control of their investments and you can see what a major temptation for the wrong personality types these are.

---

Do yourself a favor, if unfamiliar with the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) saga, also colloquially called the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals International.”

This “follow the money” presentation is from AFPN (who I don’t follow), but it puts names, dates, and basic understanding to the general concept, i.e. impenetrable, spider-like structures, functioning in areas outside government regulation and (where not doing so) bribing regulator and other officials…

I am seeing this in the tax-exempt sector. I’ve seen it in the DV sector as controlled regionally and state-wide both.  I’ve seen it in the fatherhood-promoting sector; it is very much as standard part of the USA today. That’s a problem!

Hopefully, most people’s basic history of U.S. Presidents and maybe even some famous Senators, recalls before William J. Clinton was U.S. President, he was the Governor of Arkansas.  For anyone familiar with the Rhodes Scholarships (Clinton was one) with their UK (Oxford University privileges) basis, one of the first major successes of the Rhodes Scholars in attaining major inroads to U.S. politics was Senator Fulbright from — WHICH state?  Now there are Fulbright Scholars, (UK to US, US to UK too.

Evan Stark’s version of a “c.v.” (with exhibits, himself, I guess): https://evanstark.weebly.com/cv.html

(Evan Stark, Ph.D., was one [I just found his oddly-organized c.v. (huge photo of self relaxing outside in the woods with a dog, tiny font on the right side, which was available at his “Weebly” website, with another huge photo of himself (in a brown suit jacket, apparently lecturing).  Such a modest guy….).

I go on a while with these Fulbright / Senator Fulbright/ Rhodes Scholarship quotes, so have given them their own background-color:

This material is from (was briefly published on):

How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words

A basic internet (Google) search of BCCI (written out) yielded a July 7, 2020, article published by a publication called Foreign Policy.  The title on window frame reads: “BCCI was a bank run by dictators in the Middle East that tells the story of America’s foreign corruption.”  My interest is that (this, and other accounts, including several from 1991) describe what I’m seeing in lack of accountability, system-wide, however not in the banking sector so much as the tax-exempt policy-making (and certain other) sectors.  I couldn’t post much — the publication wants my log-in and subscription; I declined.  Fine print at the bottom shows it’s a “Slate” publication.

The BCCI example raises important issues which (says this article, and I tend to agree) seem to have been forgotten.

The Dictator-Run Foreign Bank that Tells the Story of America’s Foreign Corruption: BCCI was a kleptocratic institution whose influence reached the White House—and a model for today’s global crooks.

July 7, 2020, By Casey Michel, an investigative journalist and author of American Kleptocracy: How the U.S. Created the World’s Greatest Money Laundering Scheme in History, and Ricardo Soares de Oliveira

One bank, above all others, highlights the modern realities of transnational corruption and how authoritarian governments abroad can sink their tendrils into Western governments. Overseen by autocratic oligarchs abroad, this bank used everything including shell companies, fake foundations, and anonymous real estate purchases to launder billions and billions of dollars. And when Western investigators got wind of its financial fraud, this bank immediately began bankrolling white-shoe law firms and shady PR operators—even going so far as to fund leading U.S. presidential campaigns, corrupt the leading voices in at least one American political party, and even grow close to the American president himself.The story is, in many respects, the perfect blueprint for modern kleptocracy—and how autocratic regimes abroad use strategic corruption and financial secrecy tools to swindle billions of dollars while also shifting U.S. policies to their own corrupt ends.

“Senator John Kerry addresses reporters October 1, 1992 at the U.S. Capitol about the release of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism’s report on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International’s (BCCI) illegal financial dealings. ROBERT GIROUX/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES” Found at Foreign Policy, 7/7/2020 [“The Dictator-Run Foreign Bank that Tells the Story of American foreign corruption” (for use in my post mid-April, 2017)…

But there’s one thing: This bank no longer exists. Instead, the story of this bank—the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI—takes place decades ago, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.

It’s a saga that has been largely forgotten. That’s a shame, because in many ways the unprecedented graft and collapse of BCCI foretold precisely the kinds of transnational kleptocratic practices that would take root around the globe over the past decade—and how wide-open the United States remains when it comes to the infiltration of foreign dirty money.

….And for a while, that scheme succeeded. BCCI ended up operating in over 70 countries—including the United States, Switzerland, France, and the United Kingdom—and at one point boasted over $20 billion in assets (or nearly $50 billion in today’s money). By the mid-1980s, BCCI appeared well on its way to meeting its goal of becoming the world’s largest bank by the year 2000.

And it wasn’t just the size of BCCI’s till. Those running BCCI spun the bank as an institution interested more in achieving moral gains, rather than increasing its total assets. (“The spirit of BCCI is permeated by a moral dimension and this eases the burden of management,” its founder once claimed.) To that end, BCCI bankrolled the Third World Foundation, which it said would help “relieve poverty and sickness” in developing nations, and even created an award to mirror the Nobel Peace Prize, which it awarded to everyone from Nelson Mandela to former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.

Unbeknownst to those small-scale depositors taking advantage of BCCI’s services, though, the bank was in reality little more than a Ponzi scheme for the higher-ups involved, who were simply pocketing the deposits while trying to recruit new customers. By the time BCCI collapsed, nearly $10 billion had disappeared, never accounted for.

[..Eventually the bank collapsed under the weight of its own fraud… (etc.)]

New York Times summarizing BCCI on Aug. 12, 1991 “World-Class Fraud: How B.C.C.I. Pulled It Off — A special report: At the End of a Twisted Trail, Piggy Bank for a Favored Few” by Steve Lohr

[No quote]

The Washington Post, July 28, 1991, “BCCI SCANDAL: BEHIND THE ‘BANK OF CROOKS AND CRIMINALS” By Steven Mufson and Jim McGee

THIS one is follow-up, claims by the Liquidators that the British banking system failed to regulate.  It includes an interesting history; black & white, no images. The Bank of England is being sued… the total value of the case (at the time) was to be, USD $1.5 billion or British Pounds 850 million.

Basic reading: https://www.iiiglobal.org/sites/default/files/christophergrierson.pdf (quote is just the opening paragraphs), and another section referencing banking regulation (Act of 1979) in the UK, and how (it seems) BCCI got around this type of regulation.

By the way, the “iii” in “iiiGlobal” stands for “International Insolvency Institute.”  It’s a nonprofit showing a Virginia, USA location; check out its mission statement… And read (the obituary, unfortunately) about its founder, E. Bruce Leonard (1944-2017), prominent insolvency lawyer, and lead agent in the Canadian restructuring for General Motors and Chrysler, who saw a need for cross-border coordination of insolvency cases.  You can see how the BCCI situation would be within its interest area…

While reading this next quote, as you can see, one bank (BCCI was a bank also) vs. another (the Bank of England), keep in mind, as it says in the first sentence, “the Bank” here refers to the latter — the Bank of England. It’s being sued by the Liquidators on behalf of about 6,500 depositors who were affected by the fraud…  It took until 1998 to even let it proceed (after appeal), with that permission granted by “The House of Lords.”  Sounds like (don’t quote me) “the Bank of England” as so close to England itself, cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued.

BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA V BANK OF ENGLAND CHRISTOPHER GRIERSON, LOVELLS, LONDON

INTRODUCTION/CASE OVERVIEW

The Liquidators of BCCI SA are suing the Bank of England (“the Bank”) on behalf of approximately 6,500 depositors who have assigned their claims to the Liquidators for the purposes of the proceedings. The proceedings were commenced in May 1993 but were struck out at first instance by Mr Justice Clarke in July 1997 and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 1998. The case was finally allowed to proceed to trial by the House of Lords in March 2001. Since that date there have been regular Case Management Conferences and interlocutory hearings (over 30 in all) dealing with a range of different issues, including two further appeals.

The claim is based in the tort of misfeasance in public office (the Bank cannot be sued for negligence). The Liquidators allege that the Bank failed in its statutory duty in its licensing and supervision of BCCI. If the Bank is found liable this case will obviously have major implications for regulators in financial and other sectors.

The trial started on Tuesday 13 January 2004 and is taking place before Mr Justice Tomlinson in Court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Court 73 is the court room which was used for the Hutton Inquiry. It has been wired with the latest in IT, including image display and simultaneous live transcription of the hearing. There are remote links to offices. The trial is expected to last between 12 and 18 months. The claim is worth about £850 million (ie about US$1.5 billion).

---

THE EARLY YEARS

BCCI SA was incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg in September 1972 with backing from the Bank of America as a large minority shareholder. In November it established its first office in the UK and commenced its business in the UK as a deposit-taker. Two years later the structure of BCCI was altered by the incorporation in December 1974 of BCCI Holdings SA (“Holdings”) in Luxembourg, of which BCCI SA became a subsidiary. In November 1975 another subsidiary of Holdings called BCCI Overseas (“Overseas”) was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Overseas opened its first branch in the UK in June 1976. Overseas was set up in order to get round restrictions on the branch numbers in BCCI SA imposed by the Luxembourg supervisors. At this stage a substantial part of the issued share capital of Holdings was still owned by the Bank of America. Although the group was trading through various branches in the UK it was not subject to any regulatory system in this country. But BCCI SA was subject to supervision in Luxembourg by the Luxembourg Banking Commission (“LBC”), later known as the IML. At the end of 1977 the Bank of America decided to withdraw from its relationship with BCCI because, the Liquidators assert, of its concerns about the dangerous state of BCCI. It sold its holding of shares in Holdings to International Credit and Investment Co Ltd (“ICIC”), which at the time was BCCI’s largest shareholder, and provided finance to ICIC for such purchase: a conversion of equity to debt!

…Prior to the Banking Act 1979, banking in the UK was not subject to any formalised system of regulation. Control was exercised in an informal way by the Bank and in an indirect manner by means of various statutory provisions which gave privileges to banks which were recognised by branches of government and by the Bank. After the publication of a White Paper in 1976 (which followed the serious secondary banking crisis of the mid 1970s) and the First Council Banking Co-ordination Directive (77/780/EEC), steps were taken to establish a new statutory system of banking supervision in the UK. This was contained in the Banking Act 1979, which came into force in October 1979. It provided for the recognition of banks under section 3(1) if they satisfied the criteria in Schedule 2, Part I, and for the licensing of deposit-taking institutions under section 3(2) if they satisfied the less stringent criteria in Schedule 2, Part II. Those criteria dealt with such issues as prudence and fitness and propriety.

(This document is 10 pages long, appears to be 1.5-line spacing, followed by tables (3 pages) to chronicle the timeline of the litigation… over a decade’s worth).

THE BANK OF ENGLAND (BankOfEngland.co.UK) Straightfoward explanation: Chartered 1694, operated as a private bank until 1946, when it was nationalized (‘like most other European banks at this time’), added responsibilities in 1997, what it does. I’m adding this section for the basic definitions (removed any images, some link to videos.  Very simple terms and direct address, as though talking to the readers (“we … you…” etc.)

This page was last updated on 18 May 2020

We are the UK’s central bank and are owned by the UK government. But we have specific statutory responsibilities for setting policy – for interest rates, for financial stability, and for the regulation of banks and insurance companies. And we carry those out, for the good of the people of the United Kingdom, within a framework set by Government but free from day-to-day political influence.

What is a central bank?

A central bank is a financial institution whose job is to support the economy for a country or group of countries. It can also be called a ‘reserve bank’ or a ‘monetary authority’.

The responsibilities of a central bank vary by country. We are tasked with setting interest rates, issuing banknotes, processing electronic payments and keeping an eye on possible risks in the financial system. We also provide a safe home for gold reserves belonging to the UK and other central banks. A central bank is very different to a high street bank which is run for profit, by giving loans and looking after your money.

Back to topheading links

In which ways is the Bank of England independent of the Government?

For over 250 years, until it was nationalised in 1946, we were a private bank owned by various shareholders.

Today, we are owned by the UK Government, who appoint all of our senior policymakers. But we have independence from the Government in terms of how we carry out our responsibilities. …

What does this mean?

Well first of all, Parliament has given us very precise goals and responsibilities. For each one, we have specific tools we can use to meet our objectives.

Take our target for inflation, for example. The Government sets the target – which is 2%. Independence for monetary policy – which we’ve had since May 1997 – means that we set interest rates (and ‘quantitative easing’) at what we think to be the most appropriate level to achieve the inflation target. A committee meets to agree on these decisions eight times a year.

(It explains how a central bank differs from “high street banks” for which a nice big graphic is included:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-do-banks-do High Street Banks are not that different from any other business..

This (again, from a basic Google search on the bank’s (BCCI’s now) name and nothing else, April, 2022) is an extensive, single-spaced “Executive Summary of the BCCI Affair” by detailed numbered paragraphs, followed by numbered recommendations at the bottom.

It’s fine-print and no call-outs, graphics, just straight text (and headlines) — and it’s scathing.  Please take the time to read it, and ask, why, in other sections of policy-making or government, should we have (should there be) ANY similarity to the practices that, taken as a whole here, still let BCCI (though it was eventually closed) get away with its strategy?

https://irp.fas.org/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm it’s hard to pick just one or two paragraphs to quote. I’m leaving the link.  FAS.org is “Federation of American Scientists.”  The ‘IRP” stands for “Intelligence Resource Program.”  As you can see from the url, it’s dated 1992, right after the scandal broke in both the UK and the USA.  This document talks about who dropped the ball when, and (Paragraph 16, the last, I’ll post the image) problems with followup from withheld documentation.  Keep in mind, it’s now thirty (30) years later, and there would be more recent reports, I’m sure more than the one I just quoted above by BCCI Liquidators suing the Bank of England.

The basic IRP.FAS.Org website references two creators and states it’s no longer maintained (But latest entry, an “Annual Report” is dated Feb. 2022; I just read most of it… and will post two (top, and bottom) screens from it

NAVIGATION:

To go to the originating post: How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”)

To go back to the top of this post, click:

USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW”).