natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Družba E quitable se je odlo č ila, da bo oblikovala pozitiven in neprekinjen niz statisti č nih podatkov o poslovanju preprosto tako, da bo prepla č ala dolo č ene skupine zavarovancev, katerih premije so bile prejete v obdobju 1975–1980 ali pred njim.
E quitable decided to create a favourable and continuing set of performance statistics by the simple device of overpaying specific cohorts of policyholders, whose premiums were received in or prior to the years 1975-1980.
To je nezakonito, ker krši direktorjevo fiduciarno dolžnost, da pošteno obravnava skupine zavarovancev ...
This was unlawful since it breached the Directors’ fiduciary duty to deal fairly between groups of policyholders ...
Tako je namerno povzročila primanjkljaj v skladu za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice, ki je trajal najmanj štiri leta.
They thereby deliberately put the WP Fund into effective deficit over a period of at least four years.
Zavarovanci o tem niso bili obveščeni ...
No hint of this was given to policyholders ...
Veliko število zavarovancev tako ni vedelo ničesar o nevarnostih, ki so pretile njihovim policam, družba pa si je vztrajno prizadevala, da bi tako tudi ostalo.
The mass of policyholders remained in blissful ignorance of the threats overhanging their policies, and strenuous efforts were made to keep them in that state.
Pozornost je bila osredotočena na ‚sklad za police‘, opisan kot ‚delež osrednjega izravnanega upravljalnega sklada‘, pri katerem predstavlja skupna vrednost polic ‚izravnan delež sredstev‘“ .
Their attention was focussed on their ‘policy fund’, described as a ‘share of a central smoothed managed fund’, with their Total Policy Value representing their ‘smoothed asset share’ " .
V H8 je BAIN navedel jasno obtožbo zlorab pri prodaji in pozval Preiskovalni odbor, da „ preuči ravnanje z 20 000 strankami družbe ELAS, ki jim je bil v obdobju 1995–2000 prodan produkt ‚vodene pokojnine‘ in ki so v obdobju 2000–2005 prejele majhen znesek ali nič odškodnine, čeprav so bili glede na dokaze žrtve organizirane neprimerne prodaje ...
In H8 Mr. BAIN also made a clear allegation of mis-selling, calling the Committee of Inquiry "to consider the treatment of 20,000 EL customers who were sold a product called 'managed pensions' between 1995 and 2000, and most of whom between 2001 and 2005 received little or no redress, despite being victims of what the evidence suggests was an orchestrated culture of mis-selling ...
Družba ELAS je ravnala kot družba brez integritete, skrbnosti in prizadevnosti, vendar z veliko mero delovanja v lastno korist“.
EL behaved as a company, without integrity, care or diligence, though with a great deal of self-interested skill."
V WE81 omenja DEPPE srečanje z izvršnim direktorjem družbe Equitable Thomsonom januarja 2003, ko ga je v televizijski oddaji vprašal, „ kako je lahko družba Equitable spodbujala trženje produktov v zvezi z življenjskimi zavarovanji s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice po septembru 1998, ne da bi se zatekla k namernemu goljufivemu dejanju.
In WE81 Mr. DEPPE related meeting Equitable CEO Mr. Thomson in January 2003, asking him in a televised programme "how it had been possible for Equitable to instigate the marketing of with-profits related products in the post-September 1998 period without resort to wilful deception.
Thomson ni odgovoril ...
He did not answer ...
Ko mi je končno pisno odgovoril, me je obvestil, da je bila moja pritožba rešena z odškodninsko shemo in da je primer končan.“
His eventual written response was to advise me that my complaint had been resolved by the 'Compromise' and the case was closed."
Tako so zahtevala pravila Organa za zasebne naložbe ...
It was a requirement of the PIA rules ...
Ti gospodje (izvršni direktorji družbe ELAS) so očitno poznali nasvet, ki so ga družbi dali njeni odvetniki glede pravdnega spora (zadeva Hyman) in z njim povezanih vprašanj, in so vsi sodelovali pri zagotavljanju informacij zavarovalniškim agentom družbe za razširjanje informacij zavarovancem in potencialnim zavarovancem ...
It is evident that these gentlemen (EL executive directors) knew the advice the Society was receiving from its lawyers about the (Hyman) litigation and the issues surrounding it; and they were all involved in the process of providing information to the Society's sales force for dissemination to policyholders and prospective policyholders ...
Do januarja 1999 je bila težava glede zajamčenih rent predmet intenzivnih razprav v tisku, ki je objavljal zaskrbljujoče članke in poročila ...
By January 1999 the GAR problem was the subject of intense discussions in the press, which was putting out alarming articles and reports ...
Seveda je tako postalo sklepanje novih zavarovanj težavno.
Clearly this made the writing of new business problematic.
Vendar je bilo sklepanje novih zavarovanj potrebno, če naj bi družba preprečila zaprtje ...
Yet new business was required f the Society was to avoid closure ...
Novi zavarovanci z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice so potrebovali pozavarovanje v vsakem primeru, ko jim ni bilo mogoče povedati o tveganju glede zajamčenih rent ...
New with-profits policyholders needed reassurance at all events they could not be told of the GAR risks ...
Družba tveganju glede zajamčenih rent ni pripisovala velike pomembnosti in je potencialnim zavarovancem prikazovala neresnična dejstva: oddelek o dejavnikih tveganja dokumenta o ključnih značilnostih predvideva zamolčanje tveganja glede zajamčenih rent.“
The Society adopted a policy of downplaying the GAR risks, misrepresenting the facts to prospective policyholders: the 'Risk Factors' section of the Key Features document provided being silent about the GAR risks."
Člani akcijske skupine najnovejših zavarovancev so poročali, da so jim zavarovalniški agenti družbe ELAS navajali različne razlage, da bi jih pomirili: „da so bila tiskovna poročila, ki so navajala, da lahko znašajo obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, 1,5 milijarde GBP, napačna; da največji stroški družbe verjetno ne presežejo 50 milijonov GBP; da bodo obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent, omejene na zavarovance s policami z zajamčenimi rentami; da je sklenjeno pozavarovanje za zaščito zavarovancev s policami, ki ne vključujejo zajamčene rente“ (WE-CONF2).
Members of the Late-Joiners action group reported that EL salesmen gave them different stories to soothe their concerns: " that press reports that the GAR liabilities might be in the order of £1.5bn were wrong; that the maximum cost to the Society was unlikely to exceed £50m; that the GAR liabilities would be ring-fenced among the GAR policyholders; that reinsurance was in place to protect non-GAR policyholders."
Zavarovanec John GALVIN (WE-FILE15) se je pritožil, da je njegova odločitev o sklenitvi zavarovanja pri družbi Equitable Life delno temeljila na zagotovitvi družbe o trdnem finančnem položaju, ki ga je z oceno „AA“ potrdila mednarodna bonitetna agencija Standard & Poor's
Policyholder Mr. John GALVIN (WE-FILE15) complained that his decision to buy an Equitable Life policy was partly based on EL's reassurance of its solid financial standing confirmed by the "AA" rating obtained by the international rating agency Standard & Poor's
Dejansko je ocena agencije S&P za družbo ELAS ‚AA‘ (naložbeni razred) veljala za obdobje 1993–1999, že maja 1999 se je zmanjšala na A+ (negativno), decembra 2000 pa še pod naložbeni razred (BB/negativno).
In fact, the S&P rating of EL was 'AA' (investment grade) from 1993-1999, downgraded to A+ (watch neg.) only in May 1999, then below investment grade (BB/watch neg.) only in December 2000.
Junija 2001 se je ocena dodatno znižala na B in septembra 2001 na CCC (visoko tveganje neplačil).
It was then further downgraded to B in June 2001 and CCC (high default risk) in September 2001.
Od 21. februarja 2002 agencija S&P družbi ni podelila nobene bonitetne ocene (WE-FILE22). (priloga k pismu družbe ELAS v WE-FILE15).
No credit rating has been awarded by S&P since 21 February 2002 (WE-FILE22). (annex to EL letter in WE-FILE15).
V zvezi z zavajajočimi informacijami, ki jih je družba ELAS predložila zavarovancem, je KWANTES (H7) opozorila, da je „ ob obravnavi zadeve o zajamčenih rentah na sodišču družba Equitable vsem poslala pisma, v katerih nas je obvestila, da je vse v redu, da ni treba skrbeti glede negativnih pripomb, ki se pojavljajo v tisku, in izvedla prepričljivo oglaševalsko akcijo, ki nam je vsem dala občutek varnosti .“
Referring to misleading information from EL to policyholders, Ms. KWANTES (H7) recalled that " when Equitable went to court on the GAR issue we all received letters to inform us that everything was fine, negative comments that had appeared in the press were nothing to worry about and there was a very impressive advertising campaign which gave us all a sense of security ."
V H5 je nekdanji zavarovalniški agent družbe Equitable Life v Zahodni Angliji med letoma 1995 in 2001 LLOYD jasno zavrnil vse obtožbe o zlorabah pri prodaji zavarovalniških agentov družbe Equitable: „Telefonsko dogovarjanje sestankov, pogosto v zvezi s predložitvijo letnega pregleda ali najnovejših podatkov o policah, so naše stranke skoraj vedno odobravale.
In H5 Mr. LLOYD, a former sales representative of Equitable Life in western England between 1995 and 2001, clearly dismissed all allegations of mis-selling by the Equitable sales force: "Telephoning for appointments, often to offer an annual review or a current update on policies, was nearly always welcomed by our clients.
Novice so bile pogosto dobre, zato ni bilo težko predlagati novih naložb.
The news was often good and it was not difficult to propose new investments.
Stranke so pogosto pripomnile, kako jim drugi ponudniki niso ponudili enako kakovostnih storitev ...
The clients often commented on how their other providers did not offer the same level of service ...
Ko se je začelo govoriti o zajamčeni renti, to je bilo po mojih informacijah okrog leta 1997 – takrat sem prvič slišal za to – smo kmalu prejeli navodila odbora.
When the guaranteed annuity rate issue became known and talked about, which was I believe in around 1997 – that was the first time I had even heard about it – we very quickly received a briefing from the board.
Navodila so bila ponuditi strankam nezajamčen končni bonus in zajamčeno rento, ki se uporablja le za zajamčen element.
The briefing was to give clients a non-guaranteed final bonus and a GAR that only applied to the guaranteed element.
LLOYD je enako odločno zanikal obtožbe o zavestnem zavajanju strank ali morebitnem prikrivanju neprijetnih dejstev: „Mislim, da se nikoli nisem spraševal, ali oglašujem ali prodajam nekaj, česar ne bi smel, in mislim, da tudi moji sodelavci ne ...
Allegations of knowingly misleading clients or possibly 'glossing over' unpleasant facts were equally and vehemently denied by Mr. LLOYD: "I do not believe there was ever a point when I questioned whether I was pushing or selling something that I should not be selling, and I do not believe that any of my colleagues felt that way either ...
Lahko vam povem, da nismo nikoli dobili navodil v smislu: ‚strankam lahko poveste to, tega pa ne smete‘ ali ‚resnični položaj je takšen, vendar strankam tega ne smete povedati‘.
I can tell you that, in terms of the information we were given, we were never ever told: ‘you can say this, but you must not say that’, or ‘here is the true position, but you must not let people know this’.
To se nikoli ni zgodilo ...
That was never ever the case ...
Verjel sem, da družba ve, kaj počne, zna poslovati in ima uspešen delovni model.
I did buy the line that the Society knew what it was doing, knew how to run the business and did have a successful working model.
Torej ni bilo kaj prikrivati.
So there was nothing to gloss over.
Do 8. decembra 2000, dneva zaprtja, nisem nikoli pomislil, da mojim strankam prikrivam informacije, ki sem jih nekako odkril in ki se ne smejo razkriti ...
I never felt at any point from that stage right up until 8 December 2000, the day it closed, that I was glossing over or keeping from my clients information that I had somehow discovered and was not divulging ...
Zagotovo nisem nikoli namerno zavajal nobene stranke in mislim, da nobeden od zavarovalniških agentov družbe ne bi nadaljeval s prodajo polic, za katere bi vedel, da so zavajajoče.
Certainly I never knowingly misled any of my clients and I do not believe any of the Society’s representatives would have continued selling contracts that they knew were misleading.
Mislim, da se to ne bi zgodilo.
I do not believe that to be the case.
Na podlagi tega, kar zdaj vem, mislim, da 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.
I think that, 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.
Bilo je škodljivo, vendar tega nismo vedeli.
It was a damaged proposition, but we did not know that.
Razlog so bile resnične obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz tega sklada, vendar jih nismo poznali.“
It was damaged because of the true nature of the liabilities in that fund, but we did not know that."
Vendar je LLOYD priznal, da profil tveganja produktov, ki so jih prodajali, ni ustrezno izražal dejanskega stanja, čeprav zavarovalniški agenti tega očitno niso vedeli: „Po mojem mnenju je bila največja napaka, da smo prodajali sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice z majhnim ali srednjim tveganjem, medtem ko bi ga skoraj zagotovo morali od leta 1998 naprej prodajati z velikim opozorilom ...
Mr. LLOYD admitted, however, that the risk profile of the products they were selling did not accurately reflect the reality, although the sales force had been apparently unaware of this: " I think the biggest mistake by far was the question of how we were allowed to sell the with-profits fund as low-to-medium risk when it almost certainly should have had a warning plastered all over it from about 1998 onwards ...
Takrat nisem menil tako, če pa pomislim zdaj in upoštevam vse navedbe, mislim, da bi morali imeti opozorilo.
I did not think it at the time, but in retrospect and hearing all the points being made I think we should have had a warning.
Odbor bi moral stranke opozoriti, da se naš sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice ne bi smel označiti z majhnim ali srednjim tveganjem, ker so obstajala nerešena vprašanja in bi morali do rešitve teh vprašanj sklad vsaj umakniti iz prodaje ...
The board should have been warning our clients that our with-profits fund should not be treated as low-to-medium risk, because there were issues that were unresolved and while they were unresolved, if anything, we should have withdrawn it ...
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.
Zdaj to vem, takrat pa zagotovo nisem ...
I believe that now, I most certainly did not at the time ...
Mislim, da bi morali novim strankam – razen tistim, ki so že sklenile zavarovanje – nekako preprečiti, da namenjajo denar za sklad z obveznostmi, ki presegajo njegova sredstva.“
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."
V zvezi s prodajnim gradivom je LLOYD prav tako zanikal obtožbe, da je bilo namenjeno zavajanju strank, ker „ gradivo, kot sem ga jaz videl, ni bilo oblikovano tako, da bi kogar koli zavajalo.
Finally, on the selling material, Mr. LLOYD also denied allegations it was made to mislead clients, as " the material was not, as I saw it at the time, designed to mislead anyone.
Ljudem je predstavljalo stališče o tem, kar smo menili, da je dobro vodena družba in sklad, ter spodbujalo ljudi k naložbam na podlagi uspešnosti, ki je bila dosežena v daljšem obdobju.“
It was giving people a view of what we thought was a sound, well-run company and fund and encouraging people to invest because of the performance we had achieved over the years."
4b) Obtožbe o zlorabah pri prodaji in zavajanju v drugih državah članicah
4b) Allegations of mis-selling and misrepresentation in other Member States
Ob poročanju o dodatnih obtožbah o zlorabah pri prodaji zunaj Združenega kraljestva je zavarovanec SEYMOUR (H7), ki je sklenil zavarovanje v Belgiji, navedel, da „ so zavarovalniški agenti družbe ELAS k potencialnim strankam po celotni Skupnosti pristopili z izjavo, da so zaradi sprememb v zakonodaji mogoče naložbe v pokojninske police ELAS.
Reporting further mis-selling allegations outside of the UK, Mr. SEYMOUR (H7), a policyholder who took out his policy in Belgium, related that "ELAS sales personnel approached potential customers throughout the Community stating that it was possible to invest in ELAS pension policies due to changes in the law.
Navedli so, da so te police ‚mednarodne‘ police in jih ločeno upravlja podružnica zunaj Združenega kraljestva ...“
It stated that these policies were called “international” policies and were separately administered by a branch office outside the UK ..."
Drugi dokument
Another document
Predloženi so bili prodajni dokumenti, glej WE53. dokazuje, da je družba ELAS navajala, da zagotavlja nekakšen „izravnalni sklad“ na podlagi kopičenja rezerv: „Družba ELAS je navedla, da vodi svoj pokojninski sklad kot izravnalni sklad tako, da zadržuje rezerve.
Sales documents were submitted, see WE53. proved that ELAS had been claiming to provide something of a "smoothing fund" based on the build up of reserves: " ELAS claimed it was running its pension fund as a smoothing fund by holding reserves.
Bonusi so se objavljali letno in so bili določeni kot ‚zajamčeni‘.
The bonuses were declared annually and were specified as being 'guaranteed'.
Vsi dokumenti so na zadnji strani poudarjali ureditev v Združenem kraljestvu ...
All documents stressed regulation in the UK in the back page ...
Prav tako nam je bilo zagotovljeno, da se sklad ureja izključno v Združenem kraljestvu, zato sem bil prepričan, da je vse, kar sem videl in slišal, res.
I was also assured that it was exclusively regulated in the UK so I felt sure that what I had seen and been told was correct.
SEYMOUR je dodal, da so ga zavarovalniški agenti družbe ELAS med prodajnim obiskom v Belgiji leta 1994 obvestili, da „ so bili pooblaščeni za izvajanje takšnih prodaj zunaj Združenega kraljestva.
Mr. SEYMOUR added that during an ELAS sales visit to Belgium in 1994, ELAS representatives informed him that " they were authorized to make such sales outside the UK .
Tudi veliko drugih zavarovancev, ki niso iz Združenega kraljestva, je poročalo o zlorabah pri prodaji ali navajanju napačnih dejstev.
A number of other non-UK policyholders reported allegations of mis-selling or mis-representation of facts.
Zavarovanec McCARTHY (WE-FILE16) je navedel, da se je za družbo Equitable Life odločil tudi zaradi njene izjave, da je članica „ sheme irskega varuha človekovih pravic “ .
Policyholder Mr. McCARTHY (WE-FILE16) reported that his decision to join Equitable Life was influenced by the Equitable's claim that it was a member of the "Insurance Ombudsman of Ireland Scheme".
Irski zavarovanec BERRY (WE-FILE13) sprašuje, kako je mogoče, da „ je lahko družba Equitable v danih okoliščinah sklepala nova zavarovanja (na Irskem) še aprila 2000.
Mr. BERRY (WE-FILE13), an Irish policyholder, asked how it was possible that " the Equitable, in its circumstances, could be allowed to write new business (in Ireland ) as late as April 2000.
Zavarovanec TROY (WE-FILE4) je ocenil, da mu je bila decembra 1999 polica neprimerno prodana, saj „ je imela družba velike težave z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz pokojninskih skladov v Združenem kraljestvu ..., vendar s tem nisem bil seznanjen.
Policyholder Mr. TROY (WE-FILE4) considered he was mis-sold his policy in December 1999 as " the company had major difficulties with its liabilities to pension funds in the UK ... and I was not made aware or privy to this."
“ Zavarovanec O'FARRELL (WE-FILE9) se je pritožil, da „ ni bil nikoli obveščen o potencialnih obveznostih, ki izhajajo iz zajamčenih rent in ogrožajo sklad, ter o morebitnih posledicah za pokojninske sklade, iz katerih naj bi se te obveznosti delno financirale. “
Policyholder Mr. O'FARRELL (WE-FILE9) complained that he " was never informed of the potential GAR liability looming over the fund and the possible consequences to my pensions funds having to partly finance that liability."
V zvezi s tem je dal zanimivo izjavo nekdanji zavarovalniški agent družbe ELAS na Irskem (WE-FILE2) Seamus POWER, ki je dejal, da je „ o vprašanju zajamčenih rent prebral v časopisu Sunday Times konec leta 1998.
An interesting statement in this context was made by Mr. Seamus POWER, a former EL sales representative in Ireland (WE-FILE2), who said that he had heard " about the GAR issue through the Sunday Times in late 1998.
Do takrat je bilo približno 12 zavarovalniških agentov in nihče od nas še ni slišal za zajamčene rente, ker se na Irskem niso nikoli prodajale.
By then there were about 12 sales people and none of us had ever heard about the guaranteed annuities, as they were never sold in Ireland .
Nadaljevali smo s prodajo, pri čemer je bilo v tem času zaposlenih še več zavarovalniških agentov ...
We continued to sell and more sales staff were recruited during this time ...
Ko je družba ELAS nehala sklepati nova zavarovanja, smo bili vsi odpuščeni.
When EL was closed to new business, we were all made redundant.
Potem so bile uvedene kazni in veliko zavarovancev se je znašlo v položaju, ko so lahko izbirali le med 10-odstotnim zmanjšanjem vrednosti police ali nadaljevanjem naložb.
Then the penalties were introduced and locked many policyholders into the position of either taking a 10% reduction in policy value or staying invested.
Verjetno je vodstvo družbe ELAS vedelo za velike težave družbe leta 1998, zato menim, da bi morale biti vse police, prodane po tem datumu, neveljavne.“
It appears that the management of EL knew there were significant problems within the Society in 1998 and I think all policies sold after this date should be void."
V H4 je O'DEA navedel, da je irska podružnica družbe Equitable Life delovala od leta 1991 do leta 2001 ter prenehala sklepati nova zavarovanja decembra 2000, istočasno kot glavna uprava v Združenem kraljestvu.
In H4, Ms O'DEA stated that Equitable Life operated its Irish branch from 1991 to 2001 and closed to new business in December 2000 at the same time as the UK Head office.
V zagovor na obtožbe, ki so jih predložili irski zavarovanci, ki trdijo, da jih je družba Equitable Life napačno obveščala (tj. da so sklenili zavarovanje – ali da ga bodo sklenili – v ločen irski sklad, na katerega ne vplivajo obveznosti iz sklada v Združenem kraljestvu), je izvršni direktor družbe ELAS THOMSON (H8) dejal, da „ so imele irske police ločen niz bonusov in fiktivna namenska sredstva, kar je omogočalo, da donos naložb irskega poslovanja izraža donos naložb na Irskem.
Countering allegations put forward by Irish policyholders who claimed to have been falsely informed by Equitable Life (i.e. that they had bought - or would be buying - into a separate 'ring-fenced' Irish fund unaffected by liabilities arising within the UK fund) EL CEO Mr. THOMSON (H8) replied that "Irish policies had a separate bonus series and notionally earmarked assets, allowing investment returns in Irish business to reflect investment returns in Ireland.
Vendar WE-CONF28 poudarja, da, čeprav je bilo pravilno, da 16-odstotno znižanje vrednosti polic julija 2001 ni prizadelo irskih polic, „ so bile za nadomestitev tega irskim zavarovancem naložene večje kazni in manjši bonusi “
But WE-CONF28 highlighted that, although it was correct that the Irish policies had not suffered the 16% policy value reduction in July 2001, " to compensate for this, higher penalties and lower bonuses were awarded to Irish policyholders."