Exclusive: U.S. regulators irate at NY action against Standard Chartered: India's top buyer of Iran oil turns to Azeri, Saudi

Mon, Jul 16 09:12 AM EDT * MRPL signs deal to buy Azeri crude * MRPL to buy extra oil in July from Saudi Arabia, UAE By Nidhi Verma NEW DELHI, July 16 (Reuters) - India's biggest buyer of Iranian oil, MRPL, has bought Azeri, Saudi and Emirati crude to replace imports from Iran in July and it may halt purchases from Tehran altogether as sanctions make shipments more difficult, industry sources said on Monday. Loss of exports to Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals (MRPL) would be a blow to Iran, which has seen overseas sales decline by more than half from a year ago due to U.S. and European Union sanctions. The sanctions against Iran's nuclear programme, which the West thinks is aimed at making weapons, are meant to cut the country's oil revenues. "MRPL has initiated steps to halt its imports from Iran. It is facing problems on a daily basis ... government pressure, sanctions and the latest is Iran's threat to shut the Strait of Hormuz," said one of the sources, The source declined to detail the steps MRPL was taking. The refiner has been forced to restrict its lifting from Iran to a fifth of the planned 3.3 million barrels per day (bpd) in July. Iran over the weekend renewed its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz unless sanctions against it were revoked. Flows through the Strait last year accounted for about 35 percent of all sea-borne traded oil, or almost 20 percent of oil traded worldwide. ALTERNATIVES MRPL has signed a two-month deal with Azerbaijan after shipments from Tehran were hit in July, besides buying an additional cargo each from its existing suppliers United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, to offset Iranian supply cuts. The Indian refiner has an annual deal to lift 40,000 bpd from the UAE and 49,000 bpd from Saudi Aramco. MRPL's move highlights the gradual increase in share of non-Iranian supplies in the world's fourth-biggest oil importer's crude basket and the emergence of new trade routes as Tehran's exports decline. MRPL may import only one of its planned five Iran oil cargoes in July after its shippers Great Eastern Shipping Co.(GESCO) refused to carry Iranian crude and New Delhi scrapped an order permitting use of Iranian tankers and insurance. "Because of shipping problems with GESCO, MRPL had signed a two-month deal with Azerbaijan and it may renew this deal depending on the need," said one of the sources, all of whom have knowledge of the matter. MRPL had lifted three cargoes in February-April from Azerbaijan under a short term deal, the sources said. Indian Oil Corp., the country's biggest oil refiner, has been lifting 20,000 bpd of Azeri Light crude in 2012 under an annual contract while Hindustan Petroleum will soon start buying 10,000 bpd from Azerbaijan's national oil company SOCAR. DIFFICULT SITUATION MRPL, which has cut the size of its annual oil import deal with Iran by about 30 percent to 100,000 barrels per day (bpd), relies on Tehran for about a third of its annual oil needs. "It makes sense to renew the Azerbaijan contract or look at alternatives rather than dealing with Iran-related problems on a daily basis. If they shut the Strait of Hormuz then MRPL will be in a difficult situation," said the second source. MRPL Managing Director P. P. Upadhya declined to comment. India, Iran's second-biggest customer, has got a waiver from tough U.S. sanctions after reducing imports from Tehran and pledging a further cut of at least 11 percent in the current fiscal year ending March. EU sanctions from July 1 ban insurers and reinsurers from covering Iran oil shipments. Alarmed by the Iranian threats concerning the Strait of Hormuz, the UAE has begun loading cargoes through its long-awaited oil export terminal on the Gulf of Oman. The Gulf OPEC member hopes to increase exports from the new facility to around 1.5 million bpd. Saudi Arabia too has opened a bypass in the last few months, giving Riyadh scope to export more of its crude from Red Sea terminals should Iran try to block the Strait of Hormuz. (Editing by Anthony Barker) === Categorized | Banking & Finance, Security Obama Accuses Iraqi Bank of Aiding Iran Posted on 03 August 2012. Tags: 'Your Country' - United States, Elaf Islamic Bank, Iran, obama By John Lee. President Barack Obama has said that Iraq’s Elaf Islamic Bank carried out “transactions worth millions of dollars” on behalf of Iranian banks that had been blacklisted because of their to Iran’s nuclear programme. “We will expose any financial institution, no matter where they are located, that allows the increasingly desperate Iranian regime to retain access to the international financial system,” he said. The White House also announced expanded sanctions against those who purchase Iranian petrochemical products or provide “material support” to the National Iranian Oil Company and the Central Bank of Iran. (Source: The Telegraph) =============== Standard Chartered begins fightback on Iran allegations Wed, Aug 08 20:14 PM EDT 1 of 3 By Lesley Wroughton and Steve Slater WASHINGTON/LONDON (Reuters) - Cowboy local regulator or the exposer of lax federal bureaucrats? That's the key question being asked about New York banking regulator Benjamin Lawsky after his explosive charge that London's Standard Chartered bank abetted $250 billion of money-laundering transactions with Iran. Standard Chartered won help Wednesday from Britain's central bank governor, who portrayed Lawsky as marching to his own tune, and marching out of step with federal regulators in Washington. "One regulator, but not the others, has gone public while the investigation is still going on," the Bank of England's Mervyn King said at a news conference in London. The U.S. Treasury Department, in a letter responding to a request for clarification from British authorities, said it takes sanctions violations seriously. The British bank lost over a quarter of its market value in 24 hours after Lawsky, the head of New York State's Department of Financial Services, threatened Monday to cancel Standard Chartered's state banking license, which is critical for dealing in dollars. Lawsky called Standard Chartered a "rogue institution" for breaking U.S. sanctions against Iran. Standard Chartered shares bounced 7.1 percent on Wednesday to close in London at 13.15 pounds, up from a three-year low of 10.92 hit on Tuesday. They were still down 18 percent since the regulator's threat, which Chief Executive Peters Sands said was "disproportionate" and came as a "complete surprise." Meanwhile, Reuters Breakingviews reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve has asked Standard Chartered's New York office to report in every few hours on its liquidity position, according to people familiar with the situation. The concern is that the possibility of Standard Chartered losing its New York license could spook trading counterparties or depositors, although there is no suggestion that this is happening, Breakingviews said.

The bank's top executives, some like Sands scrambling back from summer vacations, worked on a defense strategy. So far, the executives have contested the regulator's figures and his interpretation of the law, but they have given little further detail. The bank says only a tiny proportion of its Iran-related deals - less than $14 million - was questionable under U.S. sanctions rules. Sources told Reuters that federal banking regulators in Washington, who had been probing Standard Chartered's Iran-related deals for more than two years, were surprised by the timing of Lawsky's charges and the stridency of his language.

Lawsky's Department of Financial Services had come to the conclusion the case was getting old and that it wanted to move forward, a person with knowledge of the situation said. The department told other agencies at a meeting in April that it planned to move forward with the case, the person said. Members of Lawsky's office met representatives of Standard Chartered around May but did not inform the bank it planned to issue an order against it, the person said. "This is a case about Iran, money laundering, and national security," Lawsky said in a statement on Wednesday. "We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners, both federal and state, in this effort. No bank, big or small, foreign or domestic, is above the law." In Washington, Adam Szubin, director of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, said in a letter to British authorities that his office is investigating Standard Chartered for "potential Iran-related violations as well as a broader set of potential sanctions violations." The letter, which was dated Wednesday and obtained by Reuters, came in response to a British request for clarification of U.S. sanctions laws. Although much of the letter focused on so-called U-turn transactions, which are at the center of New York's allegations, the letter said it was not a comment on Lawsky's action. The alleged U-turn transactions refer to money moved for Iranian clients among banks in the United Kingdom and Middle East and cleared through Standard Chartered's New York branch, but which neither started nor ended in Iran. In London, King drew unfavorable comparisons between the handling of this case and other U.S. actions against British banks, such as the investigation of interest rate manipulation at Barclays PLC. In the Barclays case, he said, all regulators in Britain and the United States produced coordinated reports after the investigation was complete. "I think all the UK authorities would ask is that the various regulatory bodies that are investigating the particular case try to work together and refrain from making too many public statements until the investigation is completed," King said.

Standard Chartered's Sands, in his first public comments since the crisis arose, offered no major new information on the allegations, which the bank has been reviewing with authorities for the past two years. "(We) fundamentally reject the overall picture and believe there are no grounds for them to take this action," he told reporters. The threat to cancel the bank's license to operate in New York would be "wholly disproportionate," he said.

Although Standard Chartered's business is concentrated in emerging markets, which has helped insulate it from the global financial crisis, it needs to be able to operate in New York so it can offer dealings around the world in U.S. dollars. Also on Wednesday, Deloitte LLP, which was accused in Lawsky's order of wrongdoing in its role as an outside consultant to Standard Chartered, denied any misconduct. Deloitte was hired by Standard Chartered after U.S. authorities reprimanded the bank for similar lapses on transactions in 2004. "Deloitte had no knowledge of any alleged misconduct by any Standard Chartered Bank employees and categorically denies that it aided in any way any violation of law by the bank," the firm said in a statement. Specifically, Deloitte said it "absolutely did not delete" references to transactions from a report, contrary to an allegation in Lawsky's order. CURSING THE AMERICANS On Monday, Lawsky had reproduced what he said were quotes from an unidentified Standard Chartered executive director in a conversation in 2006 that demonstrated the bank's "obvious contempt" for U.S. banking regulations. "You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we're not going to deal with Iranians?" the quote was rendered in documents released by the regulators. People familiar with the situation said the bank's group finance director, Richard Meddings, one of five executive directors at the time, was the unnamed man. Ray Ferguson, a bank executive who attended that meeting, told Reuters that while Meddings had used the expletive in a heated exchange, he did not, to his recollection, say the second part of the quote attributed to him about U.S. sanctions. Meddings did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Asked for the bank's view on the quote, Sands said: "We don't believe it's accurate." He defended the ethics of the bank, which he has run for six years: "I don't think there is anything wrong with the culture at Standard Chartered," Calling the allegations "very damaging", he said he would address "mistakes" that had been "clearly wrong", but said: "There were no systematic attempts to circumvent sanctions." The BoE's King said he did not share the view held by some that the move in New York was part of a concerted U.S. effort to undermine London as a financial center, following the Barclays probe and a U.S. Senate panel report that criticized HSBC Holding's efforts to police suspect transactions. One British lawmaker, however, said the affair was part of a "political onslaught" in the United States against British banks. "I think it's a concerted effort that's been organized at the top of the U.S. government. I think this is Washington trying to win a commercial battle to have trading from London shifted to New York," said John Mann, a member of parliament's finance committee, who also called for a parliamentary inquiry. (Additional reporting by Nate Raymond, Patrick Temple-West, Sinead Cruise, Kelvin Soh, Anjuli Davies and Sarah White; Writing by Eddie Evans; Editing by Leslie Adler) ============== Exclusive: U.S. regulators irate at NY action against Standard Chartered Thu, Aug 09 14:36 PM EDT By Carrick Mollenkamp and Emily Flitter and Karen Freifeld NEW YORK/LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve were blindsided and angered by the decision of a New York banking regulator to launch an explosive attack on Standard Chartered Plc over $250 billion in alleged money laundering transactions tied to Iran, sources familiar with the situation said. By going it alone through the order he issued on Monday, the head of the recently created New York State Department of Financial Services, Benjamin Lawsky, also complicates talks between the Treasury and London-based Standard Chartered to settle claims over the transactions, several of the sources said. His action, which included releasing embarrassing communications and details of the bank's alleged defiance of U.S. sanctions, is rewriting the playbook on how foreign banks settle cases involving the processing of shadowy funds tied to sanctioned countries. In the past, such cases have usually been settled through negotiated settlements with public shaming kept to a minimum. In his order, Lawsky said the bank's dealings exposed the U.S. banking system to terrorists, drug traffickers and corrupt states. But the upset expressed by some federal officials, who were given virtually no notice of the action, may provide ammunition for Standard Chartered to portray the allegations as coming from a relatively new and over-zealous regulator. Given the content of the order, which described Standard Chartered as a "rogue institution" that "schemed" with the Iranian government and hid from law enforcement officials some 60,000 secret transactions over nearly 10 years, the bank may need to come up with a strong defense. Lawsky did not respond to several requests for comment on Tuesday. A Fed spokesperson said that it had been working closely with various prosecutorial offices on matters involving Iran and other sanctioned entities but could not comment on ongoing investigations. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the government takes alleged violations of sanctions "extremely seriously" and the Treasury remains in close contact with federal and state authorities on the matter. Treasury declined to add to that comment. SHARES SINK New York's attack on the bank's integrity and especially its threat to revoke its state banking license wiped $17 billion off the bank's market value on Tuesday. Shares in Standard Chartered fell 16.4 percent to 12.28 pounds Tuesday, after earlier touching a three-year low of 10.92 pounds. The stock has fallen 24 percent since news emerged of the New York action on Monday. The loss of a New York banking license - effectively a permit to conduct transactions worth hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars - could be a death knell for a global bank like Standard Chartered. The 160-year-old bank said it has been in talks with U.S. authorities over its Iran transactions since early 2010 and stressed that the sudden accusations by New York came as a shock. In a statement Monday, the bank said it was "engaged in ongoing discussions with the relevant U.S. agencies. Resolution of such matters normally proceeds through a coordinated approach by such agencies. The Group was therefore surprised to receive the order from (the New York bank regulator) given that discussions with the agencies were ongoing." Lawsky's move also undercut the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which has held enforcing economic sanctions against Iran as its top goal. The surprise left the office's leader, David Cohen, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, scrambling to come up with a response, sources said. The New York regulator's action may also cause problems for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York overseas branches of foreign-owned banks located in New York, and as president of the New York Fed from 2003 to 2009, Geithner would have had ultimate responsibility for regulating Standard Chartered during the period when much of the alleged money laundering took place. Geithner has come under fire from Congress for the New York Fed's failure to stop banks from manipulating a key benchmark interest rate, Libor. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS Sources familiar with the New York regulator's decision say it was based in part on a worry that the Treasury and the Fed were trying to slow the settlement process down until conditions were more politically favorable. The U.S. presidential election is only three months away and Geithner has indicated he will leave his post at the end of the year. Standard Chartered, which sought the advice of one of New York's top law firms, had hoped that coming clean and turning over internal records to federal regulators would yield a settlement, some other sources said. Those records also were turned over to the New York's bank regulator which last year was combined with an insurance agency to create the new financial watchdog headed by Lawsky, a former prosecutor and aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Lawsky's aim, according to the sources, was to cast more sunlight on a bank's alleged transgressions. Lawsky's agency, these people said, wasn't interested in a quiet pact of the sort reached by federal authorities in recent years. In 2010, for example, Barclays Plc paid $298 million in a settlement with regulators including the Treasury Department's sanctions regulator and the Manhattan district attorney's office. The bank, in settlement documents, said it cooperated in the probe. Barclays, like Standard Chartered, was advised by Sullivan & Cromwell, known as the go-to New York law firm for banks facing regulatory scrutiny. The Barclays settlement, while receiving news coverage, was a fairly bland document that listed Barclays transactions but few insider details, such as emails. Other banks, including Credit Suisse Group and ING Bank NV, have settled in much the same way with U.S. regulators. HUGE GULF One area of sharp disagreement between the bank and Lawsky is just how much in illicit funds is involved in the case. Standard Chartered put the value of Iran-related transactions that did not comply with regulations at less than $14 million, against the New York regulator's estimate of $250 billion. Lawsky said Standard Chartered moved money through its New York branch on behalf of Iranian financial clients, including the Central Bank of Iran and state-owned Bank Saderat and Bank Melli, that were subject to U.S. sanctions. The transactions generated hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, Lawsky said. Monday's order alleged that Standard Chartered removed codes on money transfers and altered message fields, inserting phrases such as "NO NAME GIVEN" to hide the nature of the transactions. At the center of concern were alleged "U-Turn" transactions, involving money moved for Iranian clients among banks in Britain and the Middle East and cleared through Standard Chartered's New York branch, but which neither started nor ended in Iran. Such transactions were permissible until November 2008, when the Treasury Department prohibited them on concerns that they were being used to evade sanctions, and that Iran was using banks to fund nuclear and missile development programs. The New York order also alleged that even as some banks exited the U-Turn transactions, Standard Chartered hustled to "take the abandoned market share." As part of a review the bank sought to give to regulators, Standard Chartered hired Promontory Financial Group, a Washington, D.C., consulting firm run by Eugene Ludwig, who served as the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency from 1993 to 1998. Promontory was hired to review Standard Chartered's transactions tied to Iran. Standard Chartered's internal review ultimately led to bank settling on the figure of less than $14 million for improper transactions. BACK FROM VACATION Lawsky's agency also received the Standard Chartered internal review, according to people familiar with the situation. But the new regulator had little interest in a settlement that didn't yield embarrassing details about Standard Chartered's activities, these people said. Earlier this year, representatives of the bank met with Lawsky's office to argue that the illicit transactions were a technical violation, according to one source. Lawsky's investigators weren't convinced, this person said. The bank, which must appear before the New York regulator on August 15, on Monday called Lawsky's interpretation of the U-turn exemption "incorrect as a matter of law." Standard Chartered Chief Executive Peter Sands scrambled back from vacation to help the bank plan a defense and limit damage to its reputation. The broadside against Standard Chartered has touched a nerve in the UK, where some investors and at least one lawmaker, have even alleged it might be part of a plot by U.S. authorities to undermine London as a banking center. Standard Chartered is the third British bank to be ensnared in U.S. law enforcement probes in recent weeks. Barclays agreed to pay $453 million to settle U.S. and British probes that it rigged a global lending benchmark in June. A month later, a U.S. Senate panel issued a scathing report that criticized HSBC's efforts to police suspect transactions, including Mexican drug traffickers. "I think it's a concerted effort that's been organized at the top of the U.S. government. I think this is Washington trying to win a commercial battle to have trading from London shifted to New York," said John Mann, a member of parliament's finance committee who also called for a parliamentary inquiry. Mann, from the center-left Labor party, has become a public scourge of London bankers' greed and immorality during the financial crisis. But he told Reuters he saw "anti-British bias" behind "disproportionate publicity that's given to British banking problems as opposed to American banking problems". A British executive at an institution which ranks among the top 25 shareholders in Standard Chartered saw, like Mann, a politically motivated move by U.S. officials irked by the major role London plays in the global financial industry, attracted big investments from major U.S. banks like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley "Are we starting to see an anti-London bias in U.S. regulatory activities?" the executive asked. "Oh yes. Is there any subtle form of banking sector protectionism going on? Yes." TOP LAW FIRMS Standard Chartered has hired two prominent law firms -- Sullivan & Cromwell in New York and Slaughter and May in London - to represent it in its dealings with various U.S. authorities over transactions linked to Iran. Among the Sullivan & Cromwell partners working for Standard Chartered is Rodgin Cohen, one of the best-known U.S. corporate lawyers, a person familiar with the matter said. Sullivan & Cromwell has represented other non-U.S. banks probed for allegedly ignoring U.S. sanctions against countries. The United States imposed economic sanctions on Iran in 1979. Until November 2008 U.S. banks could process some transactions for Iranian banks or individuals provided they were initiated offshore by non-Iranian foreign banks and were on the way to other non-Iranian foreign banks. Such transactions were known as "U-turns." David Proctor, who worked for Standard Chartered from 1999 until 2006 and who oversaw the Iran business briefly in 2006 when he was CEO in the United Arab Emirates, said the rules on dealing with Iran were unclear. "At the time (May 2006), ... the key question was to try and understand exactly what counted as a U-turn transaction," he said. Proctor, who now provides advice for banks with BAS Consulting in Singapore, added that Standard Chartered now has to help clear up what actually happened. "Banks these days don't have a choice," he said. "You have to be transparent." (Writing by Jonathan Stempel, Alwyn Scott, Martin Howell; Reporting by Emily Flitter, Carrick Mollenkamp, Karen Freifeld, Aruna Viswanatha, Nate Raymond and Steve Slater; Additional reporting by Margaret Chadbourn, Karen Freifeld and Noeleen Walder in the United States; Sinead Cruise, Raji Menon, Adam Parry, Martin de Sa'Pinto, Matt Scuffham and Sarah White in Europe; and Rachel Armstrong, Saeed Azhar, Kevin Lim, Kelvin Soh and Denny Thomas in Asia; Editing by Margaret Chadbourn, Jonathan Stempel, Leslie Gevirtz,) ================ Standard Chartered denies claims it is a "rogue institution" Last updated: Aug 7th, 2012 News by Sarah Modlock Scams | Login or register to post comments Standard Chartered shares took a hit on Tuesday as investors in Hong Kong were spooked, despite the bank denying allegations that it illegally "schemed" with Iran to launder money. The UK-based bank's shares fell in Hong Kong before plunging in London, where it lost almost 18% on the opening bell. Investors sold after US regulators claimed Standard Chartered laundered as much as $250 billion (£161 billion) over nearly a decade. Share with friends: You might also like: • Who's next in the Libor banking scandal? • Stocks to watch in August • HSBC named in money-laundering scandal • How to stay off scammers' suckers lists • The NatWest crash - how to get your money back See more stories about: •banks Follow us:Facebook Twitter Newsletter The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) says the bank hid 60,000 transactions for "Iranian financial institutions" despite US economic sanctions. The bank has issued a statement denying the allegations. It claims the DFS has not presented a full and accurate picture of the facts. It says that in January 2010, it voluntarily approached all relevant US agencies, including the DFS, and informed them that it had initiated a review of transactions relating to Iran in the period 2001-2007. Standard Chartered states that "well over 99.9% of the transactions relating to Iran complied with the U-turn regulations. The total value of transactions which did not follow the U-turn was under $14 million." However, the drama looks set to unfold further. The regulator says that its nine-month investigation found instruction manuals designed to help senior staff obscure the Iranian transactions. It says numerous emails going back as far as 1995 showed how the bank's lawyers advised on ways to go about circumventing US sanctions. "Standard Chartered's actions left the US financial system vulnerable to terrorists, weapons dealers, drug kingpins and corrupt regimes, and deprived law enforcement investigators of crucial information used to track all manner of criminal activity," it says. US regulators also claim to have found evidence that the bank had similar schemes for other countries under sanctions including Libya, Burma and Sudan, but say investigation of these matters is ongoing. Standard Chartered is the sixth bank since 2008 to be implicated in dealings with sanctioned countries such as Iran in investigations led by federal and New York law enforcement officials. Four banks - Barclays, Lloyds, Credit Suisse Group and ING Bank - have agreed to fines and settlements totalling $1.8 billion. Last month, HSBC set aside £700 million to address money laundering penalties. If the extent of Standard Chartered's involvement is as widespread as the DFS claims then it will be facing considerable costs. In a worst case scenario, the loss of a New York banking licence would be a devastating blow for Standard Chartered which processes $190 billion every day for global clients, the US bank regulator says. This was written for our sister website, Interactive Investor. ==================== Tue 13:04 Re: I respectfully suggest you read the... metal monkey Hypocrites. Cant stand them. --------------------------------------------------- 100% agree. I spent twelve years working on VLCCs (very large crude carriers) shifting 300,000 M3 of Iranian crude (per shipment) from Kharg Island to the US. Except we never delivered the cargo direct to the states - they sent down their smaller, empty tankers to a rendezvous area north of the Caribbean and the crude was transferred ship to ship. Everything was above board using BP Shipping vessels. The US spent billions of dollars on Iranian crude and no doubt still do. One rule for them, one rule for everyone else. bythesea, Sorry to hear of your woes. The advice to 'hang on in there' by fellow posters should in my opinion be heeded unless you urgently need the money that's tied up in SXX. As you read through the replies to your original post, you will no doubt feel some relief at the support and encouragement shown and probably choose to stick with it for a while more. The SP may drop further (Fosters100 is an investing genius and explains in great detail why in his 20:52 post). If and when it does drop, I sense you will be feeling miserable and irritable again, the words of encouragement here quickly forgotten. My advice would be to exit as soon as you are in profit again - either in whole or remove your existing capital and leave the rest on a 'free ride' so that you don't need to watch the daily SP movements. I hope you are not offended when I suggest that perhaps you should not be investing your money in AIM stocks, or perhaps any stocks at all, as you seem to be unable to handle (emotionally and mentally), the reality of seeing your capital reduced, albeit a paper loss. As annoying as it is, you should be able to ride out SP drops, yet by your own account it's affecting your personal and your family life and will remain to do so until the SP rises to a point where you are in profit. Again, sorry if this is appears patronising, but this investing lark is not for you unless you can separate these issues. The possibility of huge returns on this investment is incredibly tempting, but it will take time. Whilst waiting, the trade-off should not be the erosion of one's family life and personal well-being. I sincerely wish you all the best, but position yourself accordingly, here in SXX and other investments, so that you never let a falling SP drag you down with it. ================== http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3ASTAN.L&threshold=0&pageno=3&it=le Tue 11:56 What this is really all about.... CroftOriginal What this is really all about.... I don't hold and Standard Chartered Bank shares so I have no vested interest here but this is my take on what we are seeing play out here. There is a much bigger picture so you need to stand back a bit. The world economy, the financial services and banking industry and the world currency markets are undergoing a massive change. This can be seen by the collapse of the world economy, sovereign debt default, private banking collapse and currency manipulation. China has for some time been pinning its currency at too low a level against the rest of the world, this has been used as a weapon to flood the US with cheap imports pushing the balance of payments against the US, shutting down US manufacturing and weakening the US. Coupled with this is the use of the dollar as the world reserve currency and the requirement that all oil is traded in dollars. In other words if you are China and you want to buy oil then you need US dollars in order to do this. Middle East countries have not, until recently accepted any other currency, Saudi spend huge amounts of US oil dollars on US military equipment. Having the world's reserve currency as your own means that you hold control over the world, you can implement sanctions against countries and when needed you can turn on the printing presses and generate more money at the flick of a switch. This is essentially why the US are flexing their muscles. If you look at the two banks that they have recently focused their sights on they are HSBC and Standard Chartered. What is it about these banks that scares the US? Well if we turn our attention back to China, their aim is to end the world reserve currency status for the US dollar, they would like to see a new reserve currency but they know that the world wouldn't trust China or any Chinese state bank to look after such a currency. So what non US banks with a strong presence in Asia are big enough and would be trusted by the world to the extent that they could be responsible for a currency? Well if we look at HSBC and Standard Chartered they are non US, they are worldwide banks, they have a strong presence in Asia, they already look after the Honk Kong currency, they have a proven track record. They are trusted banks that operate on the world stage. So I ask again, what is this really all about ? The end of the US dollar as a world reserve currency is already under way, Libya were taking payment for oil in gold bars, Iran have until recent sanctions taken payment in Euros. Once the US dollar is no longer required by the rest of the world then it will implode, the US will either default on their national debt or massively devalue. It will be the end of the US as a world power, and that is what is driving the US. =============== TEXT-Fitch: Standard Chartered allegations potentially negative Thu, Aug 09 12:34 PM EDT Aug 9 - Fitch Ratings views the potential significant implications from allegations of regulatory and legal violations by the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) as a negative rating factor for Standard Chartered Bank ('AA-'/Negative) and for its parent, Standard Chartered Plc ('AA-'/Negative). Fitch believes it is too early to take a view on the likelihood of different scenarios, some of which are outlined below, given the contradictions in the bank's and DFS's position. The ratings could though be downgraded when there is more clarity, possibly following the hearing on 15 August 2012. The accusations and strong market reactions to it have damaged the bank's reputation and it is possible that its franchise will suffer depending on how and when the case is resolved. However, Standard Chartered has informed Fitch that deposit outflows have been limited so far and that its USD liquidity has remained strong. The bank has substantial sources of USD liquidity outside its New York branch. The agency may maintain the ratings at the current level if - under the least negative scenario - the issue is resolved relatively quickly by way of a penalty or fine, as well as possible additional compliance costs, all of which can be absorbed by its high profitability. Even so, recent developments reiterate governance and compliance challenges for banks that are active in many jurisdictions which, if becoming more pronounced, may no longer be commensurate with a rating in the 'AA' range. Risks of complying with numerous legal and regulatory frameworks and reporting to multiple enforcing authorities with sometimes varying expectations can increasingly affect profit, franchise, reputation and investor/depositor confidence. The ratings would likely be placed on Rating Watch Negative or could be downgraded by one or more notches if there was a heightened risk of Standard Chartered losing its New York branch licence and if its ability to clear USD was disrupted or ultimately stopped. The magnitude of any downgrade would depend on how significant the potential implications are. They could range from increased operating costs to material adjustments to its business model affecting diversification benefits, financial strength and customer loyalty. Fitch views Standard Chartered's access to the USD clearing system as integral to its Wholesale Banking franchise in Asia, Africa and the Middle East as there are significant USD-denominated transactions. Ratings would also be sensitive to any protracted dispute placing the bank at risk of material deposit outflows or a reduction in business relationships and franchise as a result of a weakened reputation. In an order effective 6 August 2012, DFS accused Standard Chartered of having conducted USD250bn non-compliant USD transactions with Iranian counterparties during 2001-2007 thereby knowingly violating US law. The bank admits non-compliant transactions due to administrative errors of USD14m but otherwise strongly rejects the allegations and stated that it stopped entering into new business with Iranian customers in 2007. The Outlooks on Standard Chartered Plc's and Standard Chartered Bank's Long-term Issuer Default Ratings were revised to Negative from Stable on 5 March 2012. The Outlook revisions reflected the continued rapid growth into markets where Fitch believes systemic risks are growing due to the rising influence of the rapidly developing Chinese economy and its large banking sector.Additional information is available at www.fitchratings.com. ==== Standard Chartered helped build damning case against itself Fri, Aug 10 19:08 PM EDT By Aruna Viswanatha and Andrew Longstreth WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Standard Chartered, the British bank facing explosive money laundering allegations from New York State's top bank regulator, appears to have been burned by a decision to waive attorney-client privilege, a move that usually helps appease U.S. authorities. While firms on occasion hand over troves of privileged documents to investigators, that practice generally comes with an understanding that the information will not be made public. But the 27-page complaint filed earlier this week by the New York State Department of Financial Services, a newly created regulator led by former prosecutor Benjamin Lawsky, is jam-packed with emails detailing damning legal advice used to illustrate a "rogue institution." Lawyers who work on similar investigations say that Lawsky's actions may make corporations think twice before turning over sensitive documents. "The action of this regulator will have a deterring effect on the nature and extent of cooperation in similar kinds of cases without some specific assurances," said Robert Bennett, a prominent white-collar defense attorney at Hogan Lovells who represented Enron and HealthSouth in criminal investigation. In a surprise move, the New York regulator broke away from federal authorities also probing the bank and threatened to strip Standard Chartered of its state banking license. It alleged that Standard Chartered "schemed" with the Iranian government and hid $250 billion of transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Standard Chartered has denied the accusations and noted that it approached all the U.S. agencies, including the Treasury Department and New York Federal Reserve Bank, in January 2010 to come forth with its own review of its transactions. It said it "waived its attorney-client and work product privileges to ensure that all the U.S. agencies would receive all relevant information." While direct regulators like the Department of Financial Services do have access to the legal files of the banks they regulate, even without a waiver, it is rare for regulators to exploit the documents in such a public fashion. In a coordinated investigation, the state regulator would typically act in concert with its federal counterparts. Standard Chartered's cooperation could ultimately benefit the bank in the form of a more lenient settlement. Reuters reported on Friday the bank is in talks to resolve the probe and could enter a settlement next week. Representatives of the New York regulator, the U.S. Justice Department, and Standard Chartered all declined to comment. BUILDING A CASE New York's case against Standard Chartered seems to heavily based on emails that could be considered privileged; nearly every page of the order includes emails or memos that seemingly constitute legal advice. It quotes a 1995 email, for example, in which the bank's general counsel suggests London operations could keep New York out of the loop and route suspect transfers to another clearing bank in the United States to keep the New York branch on the right side of the law. In 2001, another email from a group legal adviser suggested payment instructions for Iranian clients shouldn't identify the client or the purpose of the payment. That same year outside lawyers told the bank it should provide additional information to its New York branch about certain payments, an instruction reiterated by outside lawyers in 2003, according to emails quoted in the order. The New York case also includes details of 2005 emails and notes from the bank's lawyers discussing sanctions concerns. WAIVER PULLBACK The waiver of attorney-client privilege became a central focus of regulators about a decade ago when a spate of corporate accounting scandals, such as those at Enron Corp and WorldCom Inc, came to light. To get to the bottom of cases, the government pressured companies to waive the privilege. A Justice Department memo explicitly allowed prosecutors to consider whether a company waived privilege as a factor in deciding whether to charge a company. But corporate lawyers began complaining that the policy weakened the ability of attorneys to speak candidly with their clients, and the Justice Department revised its guidelines in 2008 to prohibit prosecutors from asking companies to waive privilege. Companies don't often provide waivers anymore, defense lawyers said, especially since such waivers could open to door to private plaintiffs obtaining those same documents. "It's pretty infrequent," a former federal prosecutor said. "You don't want to waive it, because it opens the floodgates and exposes it to civil litigants." (Reporting By Aruna Viswanatha and Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eddie Evans and Leslie Adler) ==== Standard Chartered helped build damning case against itself Fri, Aug 10 19:08 PM EDT By Aruna Viswanatha and Andrew Longstreth WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Standard Chartered, the British bank facing explosive money laundering allegations from New York State's top bank regulator, appears to have been burned by a decision to waive attorney-client privilege, a move that usually helps appease U.S. authorities. While firms on occasion hand over troves of privileged documents to investigators, that practice generally comes with an understanding that the information will not be made public. But the 27-page complaint filed earlier this week by the New York State Department of Financial Services, a newly created regulator led by former prosecutor Benjamin Lawsky, is jam-packed with emails detailing damning legal advice used to illustrate a "rogue institution." Lawyers who work on similar investigations say that Lawsky's actions may make corporations think twice before turning over sensitive documents.

"The action of this regulator will have a deterring effect on the nature and extent of cooperation in similar kinds of cases without some specific assurances," said Robert Bennett, a prominent white-collar defense attorney at Hogan Lovells who represented Enron and HealthSouth in criminal investigation.

In a surprise move, the New York regulator broke away from federal authorities also probing the bank and threatened to strip Standard Chartered of its state banking license. It alleged that Standard Chartered "schemed" with the Iranian government and hid $250 billion of transactions in violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Standard Chartered has denied the accusations and noted that it approached all the U.S. agencies, including the Treasury Department and New York Federal Reserve Bank, in January 2010 to come forth with its own review of its transactions. It said it "waived its attorney-client and work product privileges to ensure that all the U.S. agencies would receive all relevant information." While direct regulators like the Department of Financial Services do have access to the legal files of the banks they regulate, even without a waiver, it is rare for regulators to exploit the documents in such a public fashion. In a coordinated investigation, the state regulator would typically act in concert with its federal counterparts. Standard Chartered's cooperation could ultimately benefit the bank in the form of a more lenient settlement. Reuters reported on Friday the bank is in talks to resolve the probe and could enter a settlement next week. Representatives of the New York regulator, the U.S. Justice Department, and Standard Chartered all declined to comment. BUILDING A CASE New York's case against Standard Chartered seems to heavily based on emails that could be considered privileged; nearly every page of the order includes emails or memos that seemingly constitute legal advice. It quotes a 1995 email, for example, in which the bank's general counsel suggests London operations could keep New York out of the loop and route suspect transfers to another clearing bank in the United States to keep the New York branch on the right side of the law. In 2001, another email from a group legal adviser suggested payment instructions for Iranian clients shouldn't identify the client or the purpose of the payment. That same year outside lawyers told the bank it should provide additional information to its New York branch about certain payments, an instruction reiterated by outside lawyers in 2003, according to emails quoted in the order. The New York case also includes details of 2005 emails and notes from the bank's lawyers discussing sanctions concerns. WAIVER PULLBACK The waiver of attorney-client privilege became a central focus of regulators about a decade ago when a spate of corporate accounting scandals, such as those at Enron Corp and WorldCom Inc, came to light. To get to the bottom of cases, the government pressured companies to waive the privilege. A Justice Department memo explicitly allowed prosecutors to consider whether a company waived privilege as a factor in deciding whether to charge a company. But corporate lawyers began complaining that the policy weakened the ability of attorneys to speak candidly with their clients, and the Justice Department revised its guidelines in 2008 to prohibit prosecutors from asking companies to waive privilege. Companies don't often provide waivers anymore, defense lawyers said, especially since such waivers could open to door to private plaintiffs obtaining those same documents. "It's pretty infrequent," a former federal prosecutor said. "You don't want to waive it, because it opens the floodgates and exposes it to civil litigants." (Reporting By Aruna Viswanatha and Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Eddie Evans and Leslie Adler) ============== Exclusive: Standard Chartered, regulators in settlement talks Fri, Aug 10 18:48 PM EDT By Carrick Mollenkamp (Reuters) - Standard Chartered is in talks with multiple law-enforcement officials, including New York's banking regulator, to resolve a probe into improper Iranian money transactions by the British bank, according to people familiar with the situation. The settlement negotiations are expected to last through the weekend and could result in a resolution by next week, these people said. The negotiations are at a delicate stage and could collapse, they added. The negotiations come after a rancorous week that began when Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, alleged in an order on Monday that the bank processed thousands of illegal transactions tied to Iran and that Standard Chartered had covered up its actions using incomplete or false records. Lawsky demanded that Standard Chartered officials appear at his office next Wednesday to explain why the bank should be allowed to keep doing business in New York, a global hub for the processing of dollars. The hearing remained on the calendar as of Friday afternoon. Lawsky's order not only shocked the bank but also federal and local regulators. The bank had been cooperating in a months-long probe and subsequent settlement talks with federal and local regulators. The U.S. Justice Department, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Manhattan District Attorney's office had been engaged in those talks. (Reporting by Carrick Mollenkamp; Editing by Richard Chang) ========