How can the regulators possibly be trusted to fix the banking system? Via Banking Day:
The Reserve Bank of Australia, its subsidiary Note Printing Australia and their associated entity Securency, are all back in the news.
From Monday, May 14 there will the first of potentially multiple trials this year of the alleged operators of a bribes-for-business scandal that has claimed pleas and mitigation among accused.
All those facing court – some ten years after the alleged offences – were once in the employ of the RBA.
From May 8, a procession of accused in corresponding trials will each have their day in the High Court of Australia. Any disdain by the court for facets of the build-up to a criminal trial could prove fatal for a number of prosecutions.
Why is it that persons first accused a decade ago are only now facing their peers? That tale goes untold, by edict.
The details of the most vital recent cases that set the scene for the approaching trial of Clifford John Gerahty remain suppressed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Gerahty, the accused, is a former NPA sales agent working mainly in Asia.
Public figures from abroad may be mentioned during the trial, fellow nationals maybe as witnesses.
All this must unsettle the cabal running the Reserve Bank of Australia these last 40 years. Culture begins at the top, and that idea’s getting a run thanks to the banking royal commission.
But, but, but…it didn’t really happen…also from Banking Day in 2015:
A so-called ‘super injunction’ relating to criminal matters involving Securency, Note Printing Australia and the Reserve Bank of Australia has been discontinued, inviting wider comment on a notorious case of alleged industry corruption.
Justice Jane Hollingworth in the Supreme Court of Victoria last month ruled that she was “not persuaded that the continuation of the order is necessary or desirable.”
Wikileaks produced widespread knowledge of the suppression order, with its version of the outline widely reported and commented on through many forms of media.
Hollingworth put her insider view of the affair.
“The DFAT order does not prevent the publication of ‘any information relating to the court case’, nor does it ensure ‘compete secrecy’ around the case. It is not a ‘blanket’ suppression order,” she said.
“The DFAT order does not prohibit publication of the existence of the order. Nor does it prevent publication of the terms of the DFAT order, except in so far as those terms would reveal the suppressed information.”
Engaging with media’s spin on things the judge observed: “The label ‘super-injunction’ is not a legal term of art, and was unknown in the UK or Australia until around 2010. It is not a term that has been used with precision by the media or legal commentators.
“The DFAT order is not a super-injunction; it does not prohibit publication of the existence of the order, nor of the foreign bribery proceedings.”
Wikileaks did, however, foster knowledge of the multitude of Asian political figures said to be connected to the Securency case.
Naming any of these remains problematic for an Australian trade publication.
$%^@#!
