BBRowlands has posted a long post on the OTCC forum which contains the quote below:
"The deposits should be in a ring fenced bank account- now the same should have applied to ACC deposits but clearly did not"
I have posted the following rant there because I thought I was on this forum - never mind, I'll stick it up here as well to see if anyone agrees.
So the law has been broken.
Given that Huma feel no compunction to return what has been handed over, even when ordered to do so by a court of law, do their bankers bear any responsibility?
They must have known that Huma were (allegedly) property developers
They knew that article 2 of the law says developers have to keep the deposits in accounts separate from any other of the developer's accounts (i.e. ringfenced). What's more, the money was only to be used for building houses (honest that's what it says).
So, when they received huge sums of money paid by individuals into Huma's account, shouldn't they have ensured that the money was ringfenced and separate from Humas operational accounts?
Does the bank have a duty to ensure that the money that has been invested with them is being used for a legitimate purpose?
When the money was used even when no building was going on (any time from November 2005 to the present day),did nobody at the bank think to check?
In the UK, anti money laundering laws require financial institutions to make checks that the money they are handling is clean and not the proceeds of crime. As I said when I started this reply - the law has been broken and someone is going to pay.
I fully intend to pursue this any which way I can and I will rattle as many cages as I can and see what falls out!