In his blog (here), Nigel Morris-Cotterill talks of chickens coming home to roost, a lack of attention by regulators too anxious to become FinTech hubs and the constraints on prudential management of FinTechs operating across borders, especially under the EU's central regulatory regime.
Public thanks: TechWarehouse in Kuala Lumpur. I bricked my primary PC and nothing else in the house was capable of handling its workload. I needed something urgently until I get the big box to ASUS so they can work out why the BIOS isn't working out and fix it.
Linux is almost infinitely configurable. For those used to offerings from Microsoft Windows or Apple OS, that's either great or scary. It also means that many things that users of those systems take for granted don't come in the box while many things that are fiddly or time consuming with those work without any intervention.
Sometimes, one has to shake one's head in wonder. on 23rd October 2017, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority issued a notice about what it calls a "cloned firm." It's not a firm, it's a company. It would be really helpful if regulators used language more precisely. Anyway, it was this "Century Finance/Century Finance Services Limited/ Century Finance UK Limited."
The idiot that's running the scam has just sent to me - me, of all people - his pitch.
Oh, ACCC, ACCC, ACCC. Have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission not learned that success is expected and we are remembered by our failures?
And this failure is the result of one bad decision after another.
The USA and Israel are the two most prominent countries which refuse to recognise the International Criminal Court. But the International Criminal Court takes action where it finds it. And US President Trump doesn't like it when US Citizens are affected. Now he's taken the remarkable step of issuing an Executive Order on 11 June 2020 applying sanctions to those involved in the Court. And he's declared a national emergency.
This morning's crop of overnight spam that made it through the preliminary filters arrived via a contact form relating to this very site. Ordinarily, form spams are either destroyed or reported on, partly because, even using bots, the scams that get through the anti-spam systems on the forms are a cut above the junk that comes in by mail and, often, present new - or at least new to us - threats. This one is carefully crafted, almost as if it's been revised several times to get it right. And, if it were to hit its intended target - investment businesses - it would at least cause a costly waste of time. But only time because, good as it is, it suffers from a significant flaw.
While the world is in lockdown and many if not most countries have ordered the closure of barbers' shops and hairdressers' salons, there is something strange.
In the case of R (on the application of Walsh) v Secretary of State for Justice, a convicted sex offender applied for review of a decision to move him from one in-community supervised residence to another. He argued that, inter alia, since being released from prison and into such residence, he had formed a stable relationship which such a move would disrupt. He argued that this would breach his rights under Article 8 of the EU Convention on Human Rights.
One can understand the logic - the Malaysian government has a tendency to make its laws out of the public eye, then to announce an in-force date and then, when everyone moans they aren't ready, to postpone it. Getting a postponement works for e.g. so-called "e-hailing" drivers. The public likes them and so a few hashtags go a long way. But there is little public sympathy for companies and even less when there is a suggestion that the new law is designed to reduce corruption.
In a congressional hearing in 1987, US Congressman Norman F Lent of New York put it to the Chairman of the USA's Securities and Exchange Commission, John SR Shad that Rudolph William Louis ("Rudy") Giuliani, then the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, had a better public relations office than the SEC, it appearing that it was his office that had done all the work in the insider dealing case centred around Boesky, Milken, Levine and Drexel, Burnham, Lambert. Shad's explanation of the relationship which holds good today.
| 
| 
