OFT fines RBS £28.6m
Share
The Office of Fair Trading has fined Royal Bank of Scotland £28.59m after it engaged in anti-competitive practices with Barclays.
A statement from the OFT says the fine is in relation to the pricing of loan products to large professional services firms.
It says Barclays blew the whistle on the practices, which is why it opted not to fine the firm under its “leniency policy”.
Between October 2007 and February or March of 2008 individuals in RBS’s professional practices coverage team disclosed generic as well as specific confidential and commercially sensitive future pricing information to their counterparts at Barclays, it says.
OFT senior director of cartels and criminal enforcement Ali Nikpay says: “The disclosure of confidential future pricing information to competitors is unlawful.
“This decision sends out a strong message that such practices, even where they arise in the context of informal contacts between competitors, can result in substantial penalties for the companies involved. It is therefore important that companies take steps to ensure an effective compliance culture that is understood by individuals throughout their organisation.”
The OFT says a full decision on the case is expected to be published on its website later this year following the redaction of commercially sensitive information.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Most popular
Most commented
-
Neil Liversidge: Would anyone use 'hard fees' if they didn't have to?
-
Nic Cicutti: Advisers and fund managers need to tackle their charges
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
FCA under pressure to re-think Sipp cap-ad plans
-
Scottish independence may force up mortgage rates
Most emailed
-
Just Retirement to launch long-term care annuity as sales slump
-
BoI reverses mortgage rate hike for 1,200 borrowers
-
Barclays to cut Help to Buy deal by 0.5% and launch lowest-ever 5-year fix
-
Providers: Scottish independence could end pension tax relief for millions
-
Threesixty launches DFM due diligence service
Readers' comments (15)
Peter Herd | 20 Jan 2011 1:39 pm
So a bank that is mainly state-owned gets fine 28.6 million the stitching up clients and running a cartel but an organisation that deliberately mis-sold products is only fined 7.7 million.
Doesn't make sense to me particularly when it is the taxpayer that will end up footing the £28.6 million bill one way or another.
Again I want to know where the personal fines and prison sentences of the people that deliberately broke the rules. I suspect they'll be allowed carry on trading or move on to another organisation with no penalties.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 20 Jan 2011 1:42 pm
Is this then not a breach of FSA principle regarding Integrety?
I assume that this was logged and reported to the FSA? I don't remeber seeing any FSA decision notices about this
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark | 20 Jan 2011 1:42 pm
Is this then not a breach of FSA principle regarding Integrety?
I assume that this was logged and reported to the FSA? I don't remeber seeing any FSA decision notices about this
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kevin Archer | 20 Jan 2011 2:01 pm
Interesting! So it's all right to "blow the whistle" on another organsation, because they were "overcharging them" Maybe individual customers who are also being overcharged or economically advised should also blow the whistle. Goose and Gander and all that !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Garry Nicholson | 20 Jan 2011 2:05 pm
What a brilliant system, find a crooked partner, make a fortune ripping someone off illegally, then stich your crooked partner up to the authorities and you get let off ! Brilliant, what a deterrent !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stuart Rathbone | 20 Jan 2011 2:14 pm
The more they say they are changing the more they remain the same.
Break the rules make plenty of money – get caught/fess up – pay a nominal find.
Find another bunch of saps the regulators are not watching.
Wash - spin - repeat the cycle.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Booth | 20 Jan 2011 2:14 pm
This is not a level laying field.
It appears that the Banks are able to hide behind corporate anonymity, whereas IFA principals are targetted personally.
That's not to say that they shouldn't be - but where are the individuals that are responsible for running a cartel and mis-selling £692m of investments within Barclays?
Answers please......
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20 Jan 2011 2:26 pm
Dont worry, as they will not loose their licence to advise..............like any normal small business.
Said it once and will say it again. Banks should not be allowed to advise on any product other than what bank account would you like.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim | 20 Jan 2011 2:46 pm
Don't you just love Barclays
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
acc | 20 Jan 2011 3:00 pm
Overwhelming evidence, both factual and recent and on our doorstep, supports your comment @ 2.26 anonymous. I've said before, it could all be made so simple but heh, there's a little more at stake here to go down that route!
Instead of fines for the Banks, how about suspensions on trade until "professionalism" is proven and monitored independently, maybe by IFA's?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment