natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Za dodatne podrobnosti glej priloge k WE-CONF28. .
see further details in the annexes to WE-CONF28.
WE-CONF21 navaja, da „ v literaturi produktov družbe ELAS ni bilo nikjer navedeno, da bodo irske naložbe nekako ločene od preostalih skladov za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice.
WE-CONF21 stated that "there existed nothing in EL's product literature which stated that Irish investments would somehow be kept separate from the rest of the with-profits funds."
“ To izjavo je podprl ISFRA, ki je v WE80 navedel, da „ niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi, ki bi podprli obtožbe, da je družba ELAS prikazovala obstoj ločenega sklada na Irskem“.
This statement was supported by ISFRA in WE80 claiming that " no evidence has been presented to support the allegations that EL were representing that an Irish 'ring-fenced' fund existed".
Vendar te izjave ni podprl dokaz iz WE-CONF28, ki dokazuje, da je na tiskovni konferenci družbe ELAS v Dublinu 14. marca 2000 „ mednarodni aktuar družbe Equitable Life iz Združenega kraljestva Terry Curtis ... izjavil, da sodba drugostopenjskega sodišča ni imela nobenega vpliva na irske zavarovance, ki so ločeni od sklada v Združenem kraljestvu.“
This statement was however not supported by evidence in WE-CONF28, which proved that at an EL press conference in Dublin on 14 March 2000 " Terry Curtis, International Actuary of Equitable Life UK ... stated that the Court of Appeal ruling had no impact on Irish policyholders who are ring-fenced from their UK counterpoints."
WE-CONF28 opozarja tudi na dejstvo, da je to tiskovno konferenco „le 4 mesece pred pokom mehurčka v obliki odločitve zgornjega doma družba ELAS izkoristila za začetek izvajanja ‚evropskega sklada‘ na Irskem ...
WE-CONF28 also underlines the fact that this press conference, " just 4 months before the bubble burst in the form of the House of Lords ruling, had been used by EL to launch its 'European Fund' in Ireland...
To dejanje je bilo neodgovorno in neugodno.
This was irresponsible and sinister.
Čas začetka izvajanja jasno kaže, da je družba nameravala izčrpati čim večjo vsoto denarja iz irskega trga ...“
The timing of the launch indicates clearly that the Society was intent on extracting the maximum amount of money from the Irish market ..."
WE-CONF28 nadalje dokazuje, da je 12. decembra 2000 „ generalni direktor irske podružnice Noel Creedon vztrajal, da na irskem trgu ne bo kazni za zgodnjo unovčenje polic za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice ...
WE-CONF28 further proved that on 12 December 2000 "Mr. Noel Creedon, managing director of the (EL) Irish operation insisted there would be no penalty in the Irish market for early encashment of with-profits policies ...
V zvezi z domnevnimi „mednarodnimi policami“ družbe ELAS je SEYMOUR (H7) poročal tudi, da je družba Equitable Life, ko je tisk konec leta 1999 obsežno poročal o njenih težavah, januarja 2000 pisala vsem „mednarodnim“ zavarovancem „ in jim zagotovila, da so njihove police ločene in da nanje ne bo vplivala sodna odločba glede skladov družbe v Združenem kraljestvu.
Referring to EL's alleged 'International Policies' Mr. SEYMOUR (H7) also reported that when problems at Equitable Life were being widely reported in the press in late 1999, Equitable wrote to all 'international' policyholders in January 2000 " reassuring them that their policies were indeed separate and would be unaffected by any court ruling on the company’s UK funds.
Šele po obravnavi zadeve na sodišču je družba priznala, da to ni res.
It was only subsequent to the Court case that the company admitted that this was not true.
Družba ELAS je 14. avgusta 2000 v pismu sporočila, da se bodo zaradi izgube sodnega primera bonusi za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice za vse vrste zavarovancev zmanjšali in da je družba naprodaj.“
On 14 August 2000 ELAS wrote to say that as a result of the loss of the Court case with profit bonuses would be reduced for 'all' types of policyholders and that the society was up for sale."
Kopija pisma je bila predložena odboru.
Copy of the letter submitted to the committee.
4c) Obtožbe stalnega preprodajanja vrednostnih papirjev v zvezi s policami zavarovancev
4c) Allegations of 'churning' policyholders' contracts
V WE 72 je Bain trdil, da je družba Equitable Life sredi devetdesetih let 20. stoletja pripravila strategijo za preobrat visokega padca obrestnih mer, ki so v računovodskih knjigah znatno povišale njene obveznosti zaradi polic z zajamčenimi rentami in ogrozile njene minimalne rezerve.
In WE72 Mr. BAIN claimed that in the mid-1990s Equitable Life had devised a strategy to counter the sharp fall in interest rates which had increased dramatically its liabilities due to the GAR-policies on its books and threatened its minimum reserves margins.
Zato je družba ELAS zavarovancem predlagala „ novo obliko pokojninskega načrta, ki bi ji omogočil odložitev izplačevanja rente do starosti 75 let, vendar zahteva takojšnje izplačilo 25 % neobdavčene gotovine ter črpanje dohodka iz pokojninskega sklada v vmesnem obdobju.
Thus, EL would have proposed to policyholders " a new-style pension plan which would enable deferring an annuity until age 75, but claiming the 25% tax-free cash immediately, and drawing down income in the meantime.
Takšne „vodene pokojnine“ so bile zelo vabljive:
The attractions of ‘managed pensions’ were powerful:
(1) lahko se prodajajo z razlago, da lahko letne rente ponovno narastejo;
(1) they could be sold on the story that annuity rates might go up again
(2) ustvarile bi „nov posel“ iz prodaje novih pokojninskih produktov;
(2) they would create ‘new business’ from selling a new pension product
(3) ustvarile bi gotovino iz neobdavčenih pavšalnih vsot in dohodek, ki bi se lahko vlagal v druge produkte družbe ELAS;
(3) they would generate cash from the tax-free lump sum, and the income, which could be invested in other EL products
(4) zavarovanci z zajamčenimi rentnimi stopnjami bi izgubili jamstva, s čimer bi se lahko znatno znižale obveznosti“.
(4) policyholders with guaranteed annuity rates would lose their guarantees, offering potential significant reduction of liabilities."
Tako kot leta 1995 sta bili do splošnih volitev v Združenem kraljestvu – na katerih so imeli največ možnosti laburisti – le še dve leti; „ zavarovalniški agenti družbe ELAS so obiskovali bogate stranke družbe, starejše od 50 let ali takoj ko so dopolnile 50 let, ter jim predlagali prihodek iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada
As in 1995 the UK general election - with Labour favourite to win - was only 2 years away, " EL’s salesforce was approaching its affluent clients who were over 50, or as soon as they turned 50, suggesting 'income drawdown
„Dohodek iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada“ je opredeljen kot „zmogljivost, ki omogoča zamik pri izplačevanju rent, če so, ko se doseže pokojninska starost, stopnje nizke.
'income drawdown' is defined as a " facility which allows a delay in buying an annuity if rates should be low when retirement age is reached.
Ker je bila obveznost zavarovalniškega agenta dokazati, da je stranki ponudil najprimernejši produkt iz ponudbe zavarovalnice, je bila „ druga tehnika zadržanje ali ponarejanje zadevnih informacij o produktu – na primer njegov davčni status – ali možni nadomestni produkti, ki se v praksi niso nikoli prodajali.
As an insurance salesman’s obligation was to show that he had offered the client the most suitable product in the insurer’s product range, " the second technique was to withhold, or falsify, relevant information about the product – its tax status, for instance - or possible alternative products which in practice were never sold at all.
Ko je bila prodaja dohodkov iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada utrjena, se je stranki predlagalo, da neobdavčeno pavšalno vsoto in običajno tudi prihodek vloži v druge produkte družbe ELAS.
Then, once the drawdown sale had been clinched, it was suggested that the tax-free lump sum, and usually the income too, should now be invested in other EL products.
To je čudežno potrojilo prodajo, provizijo in prodajo novih polic, pogosto z visokimi šestmestnimi zneski, ki so dejansko bili stare police“.
That miraculously created a triple sale, triple commission, and triple ‘new business’ sales, often of substantial sums well into six figures - from what was actually old business."
Dodatek k WE 72 vsebuje seznam študij primerov, ki podpirajo to trditev.
The appendix to WE72 lists a number of case studies supporting this claim.
V poročilu, ki je citirano v WE 72
A report cited by WE72
Poročilo Alana Steela Upravljanje sredstev, Škotska družba za neodvisno finančno svetovanje. , je naštetih 200 primerov nezadovoljnih zavarovancev družbe ELAS, od katerih se je „ vsak pritožil nad pomanjkljivimi informacijami in napačno razlago police pri prodaji, prav tako se je praktično vsem zavarovancem kot najboljša možnost svetovalo, da ne storijo ničesar ali sprejmejo načrt postopne upokojitve ...
Report by Alan Steel Asset Management, a Scottish IFA firm. listed 200 cases of dissatisfied EL policyholders where " every single one had featured lack of information and misrepresentation at point of sale and for virtually all of these clients, doing nothing or taking a phased retirement plan had been best advice ...
Prihodek iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada je zapletena možnost, ki zahteva ustrezno svetovanje, vendar pri neposredni prodaji dopušča dovolj možnosti za zlorabo provizije.
Income drawdown was a complex option requiring proper advice, but when sold directly there was substantial scope for commission abuse.
Kaj je delal zakonodajalec?
What was the regulator doing?
Februarja leta 1999 bi morale javno dostopne številke sprožiti alarm pri Organu za zasebne naložbe: Zavarovalniški agenti družbe ELAS so do takrat prodali že 11 600 polic s prihodki iz črpanja sredstev iz pokojninskih skladov v vrednosti 1,35 milijarde funtov – skoraj dvakrat več od 750 milijard funtov, kolikor je prodala druga največja zavarovalnica, … in štirikrat več od povprečja industrije.
In February 1999 publicly available figures ought to have set alarm bells ringing in the PIA: EL’s sales force had already sold 11,600 income drawdown plans worth £1.35bn – almost twice the £750m sold by the next biggest player ... and four times the industry average.
Razen tega je družba ELAS vložila 95 % denarja za črpanje v svoje sklade za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice – medtem ko sta drugi največji zavarovalnici Scottish Equitable (25-odstotni vložek v sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice) in Winterthur (zelo nizek vložek) javno izjavili, da sklad za življenjsko zavarovanje s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice za večino vlagateljev ni primeren.
Moreover, EL had invested 95% of its drawdown money in its with-profits fund – whereas chief rivals Scottish Equitable (25% in with-profits) and Winterthur (very little) both said publicly that with-profits was not suitable for most investors.
Zakaj je družba ELAS ravnala tako drugače od preostalih zavarovalnic?
Why was EL so out of line with the rest of the industry?
Končno je maja 2002 Organ za finančne storitve izrazil svojo zaskrbljenost: Ugotovil je, da bi lahko zavarovalniški agenti pri črpanju sredstev iz pokojninskega sklada zaslužili 6-odstotno provizijo v primerjavi z 1,5-odstotno provizijo pri rentnih izplačilih, ter je izjavil, da pregleduje dokaze o pristranski prodaji“.
At last in May 2002 the FSA announced its concerns: it had discovered that drawdown could earn salesmen commissions of 6% compared with 1.5% in annuities, and said it was reviewing evidence of bias in sales."
Bain je sklenil: „Na tisoče pokojnin z visokimi zajamčenimi rentami je bilo izbrisanih iz računovodskih knjig, pri čemer stranke običajno niso bili niti obveščene, da so imele zajamčeno rento, kaj šele da bi se jim ponudila možnost izbire na podlagi informacij.
Mr. BAIN concluded: "Thousands of pensions carrying valuable guaranteed annuity rates were wiped off the books, with customers typically not even informed that they had a guaranteed rate, let alone being offered an informed choice.
Kako se je družbi ELAS uspelo izmuzniti s temi očitnimi kršitvami pravil poslovanja, pri čemer ne gre omenjati prevladujočih načel celovitosti in delavnosti?
How did EL get away with these flagrant breaches of conduct of business rules, not to mention the overriding principles of integrity and diligence?
Menim, da zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva prvič zaradi nesposobnosti niso opazili jasnih opozorilnih znakov glede nepravilnosti v poslovanju družbe ali potrošnikov kakor koli zaščitili pred tem.
I believe the UK regulators firstly through incompetence failed to notice clear warning signals about this company’s conduct of business or give the consumer any protection from it.
Drugič, niso razumeli, kako so te poslovne prakse družbi ELAS omogočile, da je napačno predstavila vrednost svojih novih polic, med drugim tudi v pomembnih finančnih poročilih.
Secondly they failed to understand how these business practices enabled EL to misrepresent the value of its new business, among other things, in its critical financial reporting.
Končno so se z novim odborom družbe Equitable Life skrivno dogovorili za strategijo zmanjševanja finančne škode in škode pri ugledu družbe, sektorja zavarovalništva in vlade.
Finally, they colluded with Equitable Life’s new board in a strategy to minimise financial and reputation damage to the company, the industry and the government.
Vendar so to lahko storili le na račun dokazanih zakonitih pravic zavarovancev“.
But this could only be done at the expense of policyholders’ proven legal rights."
Podobno obtožbo je navedel Josephs (WE69), ko je trdil, da „ se je družba Equitable odločila, da bo napačno predstavila rezervna sredstva za novejše naložbene police, kot so osebne pokojninske in zavarovalne obveznice.
A similar allegation was made by Mr. JOSEPHS (WE69) claiming that " Equitable decided to misrepresent the asset backing for its newer ‘investment’ policies such as Personal Pensions and Insurance Bonds.
To je od leta 1987 izvajala prek zavarovalniških agentov ...
It did this from 1987 via its sales force...
Sčasoma je družba Equitable sledila cilju zamenjave starejših polic s tehnično učinkovitejšimi različicami, za katere je potrebovala še celo nižje kapitalske rezerve (zaradi bolj omejenih jamstev).
Over time, Equitable pursued the goal of replacing older forms of policy with more ‘technically efficient’ versions, requiring even smaller capital reserves (because of more limited guarantees).
Za ohranjanje navidezne pravičnosti so imele takšne police enak skupen donos, vendar z znatno višjim deležem končnih bonusov za kritje zmanjšanega zajamčenega elementa.
To sustain apparent fairness, such policies received the same total return, but with a substantially increased proportion of final bonus to cover the reduced guaranteed element.
Pravičnost je bila le navidezna, ker je bilo mogoče vse končne bonuse kadar koli pogodbeno odpraviti, tako da je bila cena za boljšo učinkovitost družbe znatno višje tveganje za zavarovance.
The apparent fairness was a mirage because the whole of final bonus was contractually removable at any time, so that the price of increased ‘efficiency’ for the Society was substantially increased risk for the policyholder.
Ta tveganja so bila namerno prikrita pred strankami, ki jih je takšno namerno prestrukturiranje polic zadevalo“.
These risks were deliberately concealed from the customers affected by such deliberate policy restructuring . "
4d) Trditve o slabi komunikaciji med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva
4d) Claims of communication failure between UK regulators
Nassim (WE7) trdi, da „zakonodajalci za bonitetne zadeve niso učinkovito komunicirali z odgovornimi za ureditev poslovanja zavarovalnic, zlasti v zvezi z objavljeno aktuarsko in zavarovalno poslovno paradigmo družbe ELAS, ali svetovali zakonodajalcem na področju poslovanja, da je za potencialne stranke pomembno poznavanje realnega stanja in ne stanja solventnosti “.
Mr. NASSIM (WE7) claimed that " the prudential regulators failed to communicate effectively with those responsible for the regulation of the conduct of business by insurance companies, particularly in relation to ELAS’ published actuarial and insurance business paradigm, or to advise the Conduct of Business Regulators that the realistic position rather than the solvency position was the primary reference for potential customers".
ES-2 meni, da v Združenem kraljestvu „ zakonodajalci za bonitetne zadeve tega niso obravnavali kot dela svoje naloge obveščati zakonodajalca na področju poslovanja o težavah zavarovalnic za življenjska zavarovanja ...
ES-2 considered that in the UK " the prudential regulators did non see it as part of their remit to keep the CoB-regulators informed of problems in the life industry...
V zvezi s tem je predstavnik Organa za finančne storitve STRACHAN (H4) razložil, da „ obstajajo okvirno trije sklopi okoliščin, v katerih bi morala uradno potekati komunikacija med zakonodajalci .
On this issue, the FSA representative Mr. STRACHAN (H4) explained that " there are broadly three sets of circumstances in which communications between regulators should formally take place.
Te so: ko postane družba, ki ima podružnice v drugih državah članicah, nesolventna; ko podjetje, ki ima podružnice, iz kakršnega koli razloga izgubi pooblastila in ko se spremenijo okoliščine, na primer zaprtje podružnice.
Those are when a company that has branched into other Member States becomes insolvent; when a company that has branched is de-authorised for any reason and when there are changes in circumstances, such as the closure of the branch.
Prva dva pogoja – nesolventnost in izguba pooblastila – nista bila nikoli izpolnjena, zato nista pomembna.
The first two conditions – insolvency and de-authorisation – were never triggered, so they are not relevant.
Ko so se, potem ko je družba Equitable prenehala sklepati nove police, podružnice na Irskem in v Nemčiji zaprle, so potekali stiki z našimi tedanjimi kolegi“.
When the branches in Ireland and Germany were physically closed following Equitable’s closure to new business, then there was contact with our counterparts at the time."
BAYLISS (H5) je izjavil tudi: „ Nobenega dvoma ni, da je Organ za finančne storitve med svojim mandatom opravil veliko dela v zvezi z bonitetnim upravljanjem družb, zlasti v zvezi z življenjskim zavarovanjem s klavzulo o soudeležbi pri dobičku zavarovalnice ...
Mr. BAYLISS (H5) also stated that " there is no doubt that the FSA has done a lot of work on the part of its mandate in relation to prudential management of companies, and particularly in relation to with-profit ...
Organ za finančne storitve je bil precej dejavnejši pri poslovanju, ker se je to obravnavalo kot pomanjkljivost zavarovalniškega sektorja ...
The FSA has been much more active on the conduct of business, because that was perceived to be the industry’s weakness ...
Menim, da se je v smislu zahtev glede poslovanja zakonodajalec takrat šele učil in lahko upravičeno rečemo, da je to bilo zanj novo področje, ker Ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finančne zadeve ter Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo takšne vloge resnično še nista imela“.
I think that in terms of its conduct of business requirement, the regulator was going through a learning curve and one that it could justifiably say was new, because to be honest the Treasury and the DTI had not had that type of role.
4e) Komunikacija med tujimi zakonodajalci in zakonodajalcem Združenega kraljestva
4e) Communications between UK and foreign regulators
Dokazi iz WE-CONF9 in WE-CONF17 kažejo, da prvi stiki med zakonodajalci Združenega kraljestva in Nemčije o vprašanjih bonitetnega nadzora družbe Equitable Life segajo vse do leta 1995
Evidence seen in WE-CONF9 and WE-CONF17 suggested that the first contacts between UK and German regulators on prudential supervision issues concerning Equitable Life date as far back as 1995
Nemški zakon o izvajanju tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju je začel veljati 21. julija 1994. , ko je družba ELAS decembra 1992 v Kölnu odprla nemško podružnico in začela prodajati police prek pooblaščenih zavarovalniških agentov.
The German implementation law for the Third Life Directive came into force on 21 July 1994. , after EL opened its German branch in Cologne in December 1992 and began selling policies by authorized agents.
Zvezni urad za nadzor zavarovalništva
On 20 March 1995, the Bundesaufsichtsamt für das Versicherungswesen
Edini sedanji nemški zakonodajalec na področju financ, BaFin, je bil ustanovljen maja 2002.
The current German single financial regulator, BaFin, was created in May 2002.
(BAV) je 20. marca 1995 s sklicevanjem na člen 5.32 sienskega protokola pisal Ministrstvu za trgovino in industrijo ter mu priporočal uporabo novih tabel smrtnosti, ki jih je pripravilo Nemško združenje aktuarjev, pri izračunu premij in kritje rezerv.
(BAV) with reference to Article 5.32 of the Siena Protocol, wrote to the DTI recommending the use of new mortality tables drawn up by the German Actuaries Association for the calculation of premiums and cover reserves.
Izjavil je, da „ ni mogel oceniti, v kakšnem obsegu so se upoštevale določbe o obrestnih merah rezerv, ki se uporabljajo v Združenem kraljestvu, … mogoče da družba ni izpolnjevala določb člena 19 skupaj s členom 18(1c) tretje direktive o življenjskem zavarovanju “.
Stating that it " could not assess to what extent the provisions on the interest rate of reserves applicable in the UK have been observed, it ... is possible the undertaking has not complied with the provisions of art.19 in conjunction with art.18 (1c) of TLD".
BAV je tudi izrazil skrb zaradi navedbe vodje trženja družbe Equitable Life Deutschland
The BAV also uttered concern that the Equitable Life Deutschland marketing manager was quoted
V časopisu „ Die Welt“ z dne 27. februarja 1995: Glej Prilogo 2 k WE-CONF9. , v kateri ni razlikoval med moškimi in ženskami pri uporabi rent „ kar je v nasprotju z aktuarskimi načeli v Nemčiji “.
In the newspaper 'Die Welt' of 27 February 1995: see annex 2 of WE-CONF9. as making no distinction between men and women in the application of annuities "which would have been contrary to actuarial principles applying in Germany".
Odgovora Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo, če ga je to izdalo, ta odbor ni prejel.
A reply from DTI, if issued, has not been presented to this committee.
Druga izmenjava, tokrat med BAV in Organom za finančne storitve, je potekala po objavi odločitve zgornjega doma 31. julija 2000, po medijskem poročanju in poizvedovanju zaskrbljenih nemških zavarovancev je BAV zaprosil za informacije o finančni stabilnosti družbe ELAS, ukrepih Organa za finančne storitve v zvezi z družbo in posledicah odločitve za nemške zavarovance.
A second exchange, this time between BAV and FSA, happened in the aftermath of the House of Lords ruling on 31 July 2000 - following media reports and enquiries from worried German policyholders - the BAV asked to be informed on the financial stability of EL, any actions taken by the FSA in relation to the company and the ruling's consequences for German policyholders.
Pismo je bilo v nadaljevanju zelo optimistično v navedbah, da „ se družba Equitable Life pripravlja na prodajo in … pričakuje, da bo veliko družb zanimal nakup družbe zaradi njenega dobrega slovesa učinkovite družbe v zavarovalniškem sektorju Združenega kraljestva ...
The letter further added in very optimistic terms that " the company is putting itself up for sale and ... there are not expected to be any shortage of companies interested in acquiring Equitable Life, because of its strong reputation in the UK industry for efficiency ...
Stanje solventnosti družne pozorno spremljamo, vendar smo zadovoljni, da bodo načrti za prodajo družbe po pričakovanjih rešili dolgoročne skrbi glede finančnega stanja.
We are monitoring the solvency position closely, but are content that the plans for the sale of the company can be expected to resolve the longer term concerns about the financial position.