natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vendar o tem ni obvestila zavarovancev, ki bi morda glasovali proti shemi, če bi poznali celotno finančno stanje družbe.
However, it failed to communicate this to policyholders, who may well have voted against the scheme, had they been made aware of the full state of the Society's finances.
Odbor je ugotovil, da je bila končna posledica sheme izguba pravice vseh preostalih zavarovancev do vlaganja zahtevkov proti družbi, pri čemer so njihove izgube še naprej naraščale.
The committee concludes that the eventual result of the Scheme was such that all remaining policyholders lost their right to pursue claims against the Society while their losses continued to increase.
Pritožbe družbi ELAS in pregledi polic
Complaints to ELAS and policy reviews
THOMSON je obvestil odbor, da je družba ELAS vzpostavila notranji postopek za obravnavo pritožb, kot ga zahtevajo predpisi Organa za finančne storitve.
Mr THOMSON informed the committee that ELAS has in place an internal complaints-handling process, such as is required by FSA regulations.
Izjavil je, da je po letu 2001 družba obravnavala več kot 40 000 pritožb glede različnih zadev.
He said that since 2001 the Society has dealt with over 40.000 complaints about a wide range of issues.
Te pritožbe, povezane z „ vprašanji, značilnimi za položaj družbe, ... so se večinoma obravnavale prek pregledov polic “ (WE 47
Those complaints, which related to " matters unique to the Society's situation ... have for the most part been dealt with via Policy Reviews " (WE 47
Stran 4. ).
Page 4. ).
Pregledi polic ('shema nadomestil', 'shema za odhajajoče zavarovance s policami brez zajamčenih rent' in 'pregled vodenih pokojnin') so v skladu s THOMSONOVO izjavo obravnavali več kot 100 000 zadev, med katerimi je veliko takšnih, ki jih je družba ugotovila in rešila, ne da bi zavarovanci vložili pritožbo (WE 47
The Policy Reviews ('rectification scheme', 'non-GAR leavers' scheme' and 'managed pension review') together addressed more than 100.000 cases, many of which were identified and settled by the Society without a complaint being made by the policyholder, according to Mr THOMSON (WE 47
Prvič, shema nadomestil (75.000 primerov) je dodelila odškodnino zavarovancem s policami z zajamčenimi rentami, ki so zapadle, preden je zgornji dom v sodbi družbi naročil, naj izpolni obveznosti do zavarovancev s policami z zajamčenimi rentami.
Firstly, the 'rectification scheme' (75.000 cases) compensated GAR policyholders whose policies had matured before the House of Lords judgement ordered the Society to meet its commitments to GAR policyholders.
Dodelil jim je prejemke, ki bi jih prejeli, če bi bila sodba takrat že znana.
It gave them the benefits that they would have received had the judgement been known at the time.
Drugič, pri 'pregledu vodenih pokojnin' je bilo obravnavanih 20.000 primerov pogodb, pri katerih lahko zavarovanec prejme dohodek iz pokojninske police, ne da bi hkrati spremenil celotno pokojninsko polico v rento.
Secondly, the 'managed pension review' concerned 20.000 cases of contracts whereby the policyholder is enabled to take an income from a pension policy without at that stage converting the whole pension policy into an annuity.
Kljub temu je finančni novinar BAIN v H8 trdil, da je bilo „ v večini ... primerov iz pregleda vodenih pokojnin ugotovljeno, da niso upravičeni do odškodnine, medtem ko je bila v nekaj primerih ponujena manjša poravnava “.
Financial journalist Mr BAIN, however, claimed in H8 that " most of the ... cases in the managed pension review had been told they were due no redress, with a minority having been offered tiny settlements ".
Navedel je primer žrtve, ki ji je družba ELAS po pregledu ponudila 522 GBP odškodnine.
He gave an example of a victim who was offered £522 of compensation by ELAS as a result of the review.
V skladu z BAINOVO izjavo (H8) je družba ELAS šele po tem, ko ji je žrtev zagrozila s tožbo, „ [pristala] na plačilo 81 907 GBP“ .
It was only after the victim threatened to take legal action that ELAS " [agreed] to pay him GBP 81.907 " according to Mr BAIN (H8).
Tretjič, 'shema za odhajajoče zavarovance s policami brez zajamčenih rent' je obravnavala približno 15.000 zavarovancev s takšnimi policami, ki so sklenili zavarovanje pred začetkom veljavnosti odškodninske sheme.
Thirdly, the 'non-GAR leavers' scheme' addressed about 15.000 of non-GAR policyholders who had taken out policies before the Compromise Scheme took effect.
V skladu s THOMSONOVO izjavo (H2) jim je bila ponujena odškodnina v višini največ 5 % izgube.
They were offered compensation at the maximum of 5% level of loss, according to Mr THOMSON (H2).
Organ za finančne storitve je navedel, da je „ nadziral [ta] postopek dodeljevanja ustrezne odškodnine zavarovancem, ki so družbo Equitable zapustili prezgodaj, da bi imeli koristi od odškodninske sheme “ (STRACHAN, H4).
The FSA indicated that it " oversaw [this] process of giving appropriate compensation to policyholders who left Equitable too early to benefit from the Compromise Scheme " (Mr STRACHAN, H4).
Zastopniki zavarovancev so poudarili, da so bile ponudbe, ki jih je družba pripravila posamezno ali na podlagi pregledov polic, smešne, saj so predstavljale le majhen delež celotne izgube zavarovancev.
Policyholders' representatives stressed that the offers made by the Society individually or as a result of policy reviews were derisory, representing only a small fraction of what people had actually lost.
Kljub temu je v skladu s THOMSONOVO izjavo (H2) velika večina zadevnih zavarovancev ponudbe družbe sprejela.
However, the vast majority of those concerned accepted the offers made to them by the Society according to Mr THOMSON (H2).
Izjavil je, da je družba približno 1 000 zadev, pri katerih zavarovanci ponudbe niso sprejeli, posredovala Službi varuha človekovih pravic za finančne zadeve (glej spodaj).
He said that about 1.000 cases, where policyholders did not accept, were referred by the Society to the Financial Ombudsman Service (see below).
Obtožbe o goljufiji in Urad Združenega kraljestva za težje goljufije
V. Allegations of fraud and the UK Serious Fraud Office
V nekaterih pisnih dokazih, ki jih je prejel odbor
In some of the written evidence received by the committee
Glej na primer WE 7, WE 8, WE 9, WE 25, WE 31, WE 33, WE 34, WE 40 in WE 42. , je navedeno, da sta bila stališče in ravnanje družbe enakovredna goljufiji.
See for instance WE 7, WE 8, WE 9, WE 25, WE 31, WE 33, WE 34, WE 40 and WE 42. it is alleged that the Society's stance and conduct has been tantamount to fraud.
Združenje vlagateljev je v WE 31
The Investor's Association states in WE 31
Stran 2. navedlo, da goljufije ne morejo dokazati, vendar so razpoložljivi dokazi prepričljivi.
Page 2. that they cannot prove that fraud occurred but that the available evidence would be persuasive.
Ta delovni dokument teh obtožb ne obravnava podrobno.
The present working document does not deal with these allegations in detail.
Če bi se izkazalo, da so resnične, bi to zavarovancem pomagalo pri utemeljevanju zahtevkov in doseganju odškodnine na civilnih sodiščih.
If they were found to be true, however, this would help policyholders to substantiate claims and obtain redress before civil courts.
V WE 31
WE 31
Stran 7. je navedeno, da je vprašanje, ali je družba Equitable Life kot subjekt storila civilni delikt z zavajanjem zavarovancev, bistveno, ker bi bila v tem primeru za zavarovance civilna tožba še vedno teoretično mogoča, tudi če bi možnost uporabe ostalih ukrepov že zastarala (glej spodaj).
Page 7. suggests that the issue of whether Equitable Life, as an entity, committed civil wrongs by deceiving policyholders would be relevant, since civil legal action would in that case still be theoretically possible for policyholders even if action on other grounds has already been timed out (see below).
Družba ELAS je menila, da „ je natančno preučila obtožbe o goljufiji, [vendar] ni našla nobenih trdnih dokazov o goljufiji, na podlagi katerih bi se lahko začel postopek proti družbi“ (WE-CONF
ELAS says that " we have looked at allegations of fraud in great detail [but] have found no evidence that leads to a sustainable case of fraud against the Society " (WE-CONF
Nekateri zavarovanci so obtožbe dejansko posredovali Uradu Združenega kraljestva za težje goljufije
Some policyholders indeed referred the allegations to the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Glej na primer pisno izjavo Chasa Greya (WE 9), strani 3 in 4. .
See for instance, written submission by Mr Chase Grey (WE 9), pages 3 and 4. .
V skladu z LAKOVO izjavo je Urad za težje goljufije k obravnavi te zadeve pozvalo tudi Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve.
According to Mr LAKE, the SFO was even asked by HM Treasury to consider the case.
Urad na spletni strani
The SFO states on its website
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/. navaja, da je neodvisen vladni organ za preiskavo in pregon težjih ali zapletenih goljufij.
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/ that it is an independent government department that investigates and prosecutes serious or complex fraud.
Je del kazenskega sodnega sistema Združenega kraljestva.
It is part of the UK criminal justice system.
Urad vodi direktor, ki ga imenuje državni tožilec, kateremu je odgovoren.
The Office is headed by the Director who is appointed by, and accountable to, the Attorney General.
Ključno merilo pri sprejemanju zadev je, ali se zdi domnevna goljufija tako težka ali zapletena, da morajo preiskavo izvajati tisti, odgovorni za pregon.
The key criterion it uses when deciding whether to accept a case is that the suspected fraud appears to be so serious or complex that its investigation should be carried out by those responsible for its prosecution.
Drugi dejavniki vključujejo vrednost domnevne goljufije ter vprašanja, ali obstaja znatna mednarodna razsežnost, ali je verjetno, da bo povzročila splošno zaskrbljenost javnosti, in ali zahteva zelo specializirano znanje, na primer, o finančnih trgih.
Other factors include the value of the alleged fraud, whether there is a significant international dimension, whether the case is likely to be of widespread public concern and whether it requires highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets.
CHASE GREY je navedel, da ga je Urad za težje goljufije obvestil, da se bodo njegove posredovane obtožbe obravnavale ob upoštevanju takratne civilne tožbe družbe ELAS proti nekdanjim direktorjem in revizorjem.
Mr CHASE GREY states that the SFO informed him that the allegations he had put forward would be considered in the light of the then ongoing civil action by ELAS against its former directors and auditors.
Po njegovem mnenju so se civilne tožbe družbe ELAS „ skoraj zagotovo začele kot namerna taktika zavlačevanja [in] da bi prikrile resnico o propadu družbe ELAS “ (WE 9
According to him, the civil actions by ELAS " had almost certainly been commenced as a deliberate delaying tactic [and] to conceal the truth behind the ELAS collapse " (WE 9
Strani 3 in 4. ).
Pages 3 and 4. ).
Razen tega je CHASE GREY trdil, da ga je WEIR obvestil, da Urad za težje goljufije kljub njegovim večkrat izraženim zahtevam ni uradno priznal prejema poročila
Furthermore, Mr CHASE GREY claims to have been informed by Mr WEIR that, despite repeated requests by Mr WEIR, the SFO has failed to acknowledge formally the receipt of a report
Michaela Nassima; 30. december 2004: , ki v skladu z CHASE GREYEVIM mnenjem pomeni najbolj celovito razlago o domnevni goljufiji in ki naj bi ga WEIR predložil Uradu za težje goljufije (WE 9
A paper by Dr Michael Nassim; 30 December 2004. , which represents the most comprehensive account of the alleged fraud, according to Mr CHASE GREY, and which had apparently been submitted to the SFO by Mr WEIR (WE 9
Urad za težje goljufije se je pozneje odločil, da te zadeve ne bo preiskoval.
The SFO later decided not to investigate the case.
MAXWELL (H4) je navedel citat iz sporočila za javnost, ki ga je Urad za težje goljufije objavil 19. decembra 2005: „ Po natančni obravnavi razpoložljivih dokazov, vključno s Penrosovim poročilom in dokumenti družbe, ter na podlagi rezultata tožbe družbe proti nekdanjim revizorjem in nekaterim nekdanjim direktorjem Urad za težje goljufije potrjuje, da ni dejstev, ki bi utemeljevala popolno kazensko preiskavo poslovanja družbe Equitable Life Assurance Society“ .
Mr MAXWELL (H4) quoted from a press release, which the SFO issued on 19 December 2005: " Following careful consideration of the available evidence, including the Penrose Report and material held by the Society and following the result of the Society’s case against its previous auditors and some of its former directors, the Serious Fraud Office confirms that nothing has emerged which would justify a full criminal investigation into the affairs of the Equitable Life Assurance Society ".
WE-CONF 30 vključuje dopis Urada za težje goljufije zavarovancu, ki pojasnjuje odločitev tega urada: „Ta odločitev je temeljila na natančnem pregledu Penrosovega poročila in obširnih preiskavah, da bi ugotovili, ali obstaja dovolj dokazov za začetek kazenske preiskave, ki ji bo sledil pregon.
WE-CONF 30 contains a letter by the SFO to a policyholder explaining the SFO's decision: " This decision was based on a thorough examination of the Penrose report and extensive enquiries to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to commence a criminal investigation with a view to prosecution.
Naš pregled je upošteval rezultat civilne tožbe družbe Equitable Life proti nekdanjim revizorjem ter nekdanjim direktorjem in uslužbencem družbe.
Our review took into account the outcome of the civil proceedings brought by Equitable Life against its former auditors and former company directors and officers.
Pri preskusu, ki ga Urad za težje goljufije uporablja pri takšni oceni, se ugotavlja, ali so dokazi proti posamezniku ali subjektu dovolj trdni, da bi lahko razumno pričakovali obsodbo s strani porote.
The test that SFO applies in such assessment is whether the evidence against any individual or entity is sufficiently strong to give reasonable prospect of securing a conviction before a jury.
Kaznivo(-a) dejanje(-a) je treba nedvoumno dokazati.
The offence or offences need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Pri pregledu Urada za težje goljufije je bilo ugotovljeno, da glede na dokaze preskus ne bi bil uspešen.“
The SFO review concluded that, respective of the evidence, the test would not be met. "
LAKE (H1) je kritiziral, da je „ Urad za težje goljufije nenavadno potreboval dve leti za odločitev, da ni podlage za preiskavo,, kljub precej očitnim napačnim navajanjem dejstev v letnih izkazih družbe Equitable za zavarovance “.
Mr LAKE (H1) criticised that " bizarrely, the SFO took two years to decide that there was no case to investigate despite the quite evident misrepresentations on Equitable's annual statements to policyholders ".
Vendar je BRAITWAITE (H1) poudaril, da „ [akcijska skupina EMAG] ni namigovala, da Urad za težje goljufije ni preučil možnosti pojava goljufije “ .
Mr BRAITWAITE (H1), however, underlined that " there is no insinuation from [EMAG] that the SFO did not look at the possibility that fraud had taken place " .
Vendar je v WE 31
In WE 31
Stran 6. navedeno, da je angleško kazensko pravo na področju zapletenih finančnih goljufij pomilovanja vredno in neučinkovito: „ Urad za težje goljufije ima velike težave pri dokazovanju krivde in njegovi rezultati so zelo slabi“ .
Page 6. it is claimed, however, that English criminal law on complex financial frauds is in an unfortunate and ineffective state: " The SFO has great difficulty in obtaining convictions and its track record is very poor ".
Obtožbe o zlorabah pri prodaji, ki so podrobneje opisane v delu III tega poročila, je odboru ustno in pisno predložilo več zavarovancev.
Allegations of mis-selling, which are outlined in more detail in Part III of this report, were put forward to the committee by numerous policyholders orally and in writing.
Družba Equitable strank domnevno ni obvestila (ali jih je zavajala) o tveganjih, povezanih z dejstvom, da so njihova sredstva v skupnem skladu s policami z zajamčenimi rentami.
Customers were reportedly never informed (or misled) by Equitable about the risks associated with the fact that their funds were to be in a common pool with GAR-policies.
Zlasti tisti zavarovanci, ki so police kupili konec devetdesetih let 20. stoletja, ko so obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, postale bistveno tveganje (zlasti ob upoštevanju tekoče zadeve Hyman), so se pritožili, da niso bili ustrezno obveščeni, in zato trdijo, da jim je družba ELAS nepravilno prodala police.
In particular, those policyholders who had purchased their policies in the late 1990s, when the GAR liabilities became a material risk (in particular in the light of the ongoing Hyman case) complained that they were not properly informed and therefore claim that ELAS mis-sold policies to them.
Zavarovanci so navedli tudi druge obtožbe o zlorabah pri prodaji, tj., da je bilo v prodajnem gradivu družbe ELAS navedeno, da sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice izravnava nihanja dobička in vrednosti sredstev (kar ni bilo res) ter da je družba ELAS vztrajno prenesla stalno preprodajanje sedanjih polic družbe ELAS k novejšim naložbenim politikam, ki družbi prinašajo velik dobiček (ker so ustvarile nove posle in storitve ter zahtevajo še manjše kapitalske rezerve).
Policyholders also made other mis-selling allegations, i.e. that ELAS sales material claimed that the 'with-profits' fund was smoothing out fluctuations in earnings and asset values (which was not the case), and that ELAS aggressively pushed the 'churning' of existing ELAS policies towards newer investment policies which were highly profitable for ELAS (as they generated new business and commissions and required even smaller capital reserves).
Opozoriti je treba, da sta nekatere obtožbe zavarovancev potrdila nekdanja zavarovalniška agenta družbe ELAS (glej ustne dokaze LLOYDA (H5) in POWERJA (WE-FILE 2)), ki sta trdila, da je družba zavajala tudi njiju.
It is worthwhile noting that some of the allegations made by policyholders were confirmed by two former ELAS salesmen (see oral evidence given by Mr LLOYD (H5) and Mr POWER (WE-FILE 2)) who claimed that they themselves were misled by the Society.
Na primer, zavarovalniški agent v Združenem kraljestvu LLOYD, je pred odborom izjavil: „ Mislim, da nas je uprava družbe Equitable Life vse razočarala.
Mr LLOYD for instance, a salesman in the UK, told the committee the following: " I feel that we were all let down by the board of Equitable Life.
Menim, da je bila njena dolžnost, da zavarovance in zavarovalniške agente obvesti o tveganjih, povezanih z dodajanjem zneskov obstoječemu skladu za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, in sicer bi morala ta tveganja biti znana do leta 1998 in po možnosti še prej. ...
In my opinion, it had the duty to tell the policyholders and the sales staff about the risks associated with adding further sums to the existing with-profits fund and I believe that those risks should have been known by 1998, and possibly sooner. ...
Zdaj vem, da sem bil zaveden glede tveganj, povezanih s skladom za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice. ...
With hindsight, I believe I was misled about the risks associated with the with-profits fund. ...
Tega prej očitno nisem razumel, vendar zdaj menim, da bi morali storiti nekaj, s čimer bi novim strankam – razen tistim, ki so že sklenile zavarovanje – preprečili dajanje denarja v sklad z obveznostmi, ki so presegale njegova sredstva.
Obviously I did not at the time, but looking back now, I believe that something should have been done to prevent further clients – other than those already in it – committing money to a fund that had liabilities that were beyond its means.
Na podlagi tega, kar vemo zdaj, smo sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice prodajali na način, ki je škodoval dohodku iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada in rentam z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice “.
In hindsight, we were selling the with-profits fund in a way that, from what we now know, was reckless both for income drawdown and for with-profit annuities " (H5).
Nerazumljivo je, ... da bi kdor koli, ki je to vedel in si je želel varen prihodek za življenje, ... kupil takšen produkt“ (WE 23
It is inconceivable ... that anybody who understood this and was seeking a secure income for life ... would ever have bought such a product " (WE 23
Finančni novinar BAIN je v H8 odbor opozoril na pojav, ki ga je poimenoval „ organizirane zlorabe pri prodaji “ v zvezi s t.i. vodenimi pokojninami, ki jih je družba uvedla leta 1995.
Mr BAIN, financial journalist, in H8 drew the committee's attention to what he described as an " orchestrated culture of mis-selling " in connection with so-called 'managed pensions' which were introduced by the Society in 1995.
Gre za črpanje sredstev iz pokojninskih polic, pri katerih lahko zavarovanec prejme dohodek iz pokojninske police, ne da bi hkrati spremenil celotno pokojninsko polico v rento.
These were income drawdown pension policies, whereby the policyholder is enabled to take an income from a pension policy without at that stage converting the whole pension policy into an annuity.
To vprašanje izčrpno obravnava del III poročila.
This issue is dealt with in detail in Part III of this report.
Več zavarovancev meni, da je tožba proti družbi utemeljena, ker so imeli škodo zaradi prakse družbe v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja, ko je izplačevala previsoke bonuse, kot je v poročilu ugotovil Lord Penrose (WE 16
A number of policyholders consider they have a claim against the Society because they suffered losses due to the Society's practice of over-allocating bonuses during the 1990s, as Lord Penrose identified in his report (WE 16
Poglavje 6. ).
Chapter 6. ).
Lord Penrose je nasprotoval stališču, da so težave družbe neposredno povzročile težave v zvezi s tožbo Hyman, in je navedel, da je imel sklad v devetdesetih letih 20. stoletja velik primanjkljaj zaradi previsokih izplačil družbe ELAS v tem obdobju.
Lord Penrose challenged the view that problems at the Society were directly attributable to the problems of the Hyman litigation and showed that the fund was largely in deficit during the 1990s, as a result of excessive payouts by ELAS throughout this period.
Po objavi poročila dne 8. marca 2004 je družba ELAS jasno izrazila mnenje, da bi se odločno branila, če bi zavarovanci vložili tožbe proti njej na podlagi ugotovitev Lorda Penrosa (glej WE-CONF 29
Following the publication of the report on 8 March 2004, ELAS apparently expressed the view that it would have a strong defence if policyholders sought to bring claims against it on the basis of Lord Penrose's findings (see WE-CONF 29
Pozneje je Organ za finančne storitve izvedel lastno preiskavo ob podpori zunanjih strokovnjakov, da bi ocenil „ možne zahtevke proti družbi Equitable Life Assurance Society, ki bi bili vloženi na podlagi poročila Lorda Penrosa “.
The FSA subsequently carried out its own investigation with the support of external experts in order to assess " the potential claims against the Equitable Life Assurance Society arising from the report by Lord Penrose ".
Odbor je prejel zelo popravljeno različico ocene Organa za finančne storitve, ki ugotavlja, „ da ni večjega tveganja, da bodo zahtevki na podlagi prakse družbe v zvezi z bonusi uspešni “ (WE-CONF 29
The committee obtained a heavily edited version of the FSA's assessment, which concludes " that there is not a significant risk that there will be successful claims on the basis of the Society's bonus practice " (WE-CONF 29
Stran 9. ).
Page 9. ).
Kljub temu ta popravljeni dokument ne vključuje nobenih razlogov ali pojasnila za to ugotovitev.
However, no reasoning or explanation for this conclusion is contained in this edited document.
Organ za finančne storitve je julija 2004 na spletni strani objavil informativni dokument z nasveti za zavarovance družbe ELAS o različnih vprašanjih (WE-FILE 29).
In July 2004, the FSA published an information document with advice for ELAS policyholders about various issues on its website (WE-FILE 29).