For us trustees, we like exculpatory clauses as much as anyone else and God knows we need them, here is an interesting "real" world application. It's not trust-related but I'm sure we'll all be thinking of what this judgment may mean to the way we do business.
For all you bank in-house counsels out there, this is a must read – time to secure your job for the next 12-months by doing a comprehensive review of account opening documentation and procedures.
For all you that book business into banks (like us trustees), this is also a must read – who knows, you may qualify to get back some of those trading losses or “exorbitant fees” yourself. Hire a bank account statement reader ASAP!
For you bank OPs guys, here comes another nightmare project.
Steven Chong, nice one!
EFG, back to the drawing board. In hindsight, they should have paid the measly restitution, got a gag and avoided looking "unconscionable" among other things.
Tony? Well’s he’s teaching at Nanyang Poly I understand
MAS? Hello? You there?
Jiang Ou v EFG Bank AG [2011] SGHC 149
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/judgment/12554.html?utm_source=web%20subscription&utm_medium=web&title=Jiang%20Ou%20v%20EFG%20Bank%20AG %5B2011%5D%20SGHC%20149
At the heart of the matter were some 160 transactions EFG did on the non-discretionary account of a customer. EFG practised their “craft” and managed to successfully lose some US$2.4M of the customer’s money (some 45% of the total value) as well earn some US$1M in transactional fees. Turns out the transactions weren’t authorised, therefore EFG tried to rely on shifting the burden to the customer, under those nasty "conclusive evidence" provisions that say if you didn’t object to your bank statements and do so in a timely manner then all’s well and you can’t sue us, nah-na-na-nah.
No comments:
Post a Comment