Imagine that you put all your life savings into a bank, perhaps even the proceeds from the sale of your house, for safe keeping and one morning you woke up to the nightmare news that the bank had closed its doors and you couldn’t have your money. On October 8th 2008, that’s exactly what happened to many savers with KSF on the Isle of Man. Some of us have lost pensions, some our life savings, some the working capital from our businesses …
Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
We hope that you will read further and support us in our endeavours to persuade the British, Icelandic and Isle of Man governments to return our money.
From the Kaupthing & Singer Friedlander Isle of Man Depositers Action Group (phew, a mouthful)
Related posts:
Jim
2 years ago
Perhaps a more user friendly site for the public & depositors with popular blog here:
http://www.kaupthingiom-dag.co.uk
OhIngardail
2 years ago
I am hugely sorry for what KSFIOM depositors have suffered, but I really think that quoting this part of the human rights act is a waste of time. Banks are happy for depositors to believe that the money they (the depositors) leave with them (the banks) still belongs to the depositors, but this is simply untrue.
When you put your money in a bank – THE MONEY BELONGS TO THE BANK!
We all like to believe otherwise and banks have a vested interest in letting us believe so, but it simply isn’t true. Banks will not take in deposits at all unless they own them – have a look at the bank’s terms and conditions.
This is why the UK has a deposit *insurance* scheme – it *insures* against loss.
So, if I was a lawyer I’d easily counter the arguments given :
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
“M’lud, I am fully in agreement with the plaintiff that he has the right to own property, but the argument doesn’t have any bearing on this case as he, of his own free will, gave up property rights on his money when he handed it over to KSFIOM. If the plaintiff would care to re-examine the terms and conditions he signed with KSFIOM when he made his deposit, and the laws and customs of the Isle of Man or the UK, and precedent set by several centuries of banking regulations, he will be able to confirm this.”
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
“M’lud, whilst I am in full agreement that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his property, as I have alluded to before, the property ceased to be his as soon as he handed it over to KSFIOM.”
If you are going to attempt a legalistic approach, you can fully expect a legalistic counterargument.
The only argument I see that has any chance (and that a slim one) is a moral argument based on the precedence set by the UK government stumping up taxpayer money to bail out UK mainland Icesave depositors.
The argument goes like this :
When you bank in any given jurisdiction, you take on the risks and responsibilities with so doing.
- in the UK, Icesave depositors freely took the risk that, in case of loss, the first £16000 (I forget the exact amount) would be made good by the Icelandic authorities, and the rest up to £35000 would be made good by the UK authorities
- depositors thus also take the risk that Icelandic or UK authorities would be unable or unwilling to discharge their commitments
Yet despite this, when the Icelandic authorities failed to discharge their commitments, the UK authorties set a *new* precedent in not only covering Iceland’s commitments but discharging all retail deposits no matter what the amount – way above the agreed £35000 level.
So, the failure of the IoM authorities to make good the deposits under their charge is comparable to what happened when Iceland did the same.
However, the ultimate decison is going to be political, and KSFIOM depsitors are not as important to the UK government as retail Icesave investors, nor are there as many of them. Furthermore, it is widely believed in the UK that the reason UK citizens banked in the IoM was to avoid paying tax (although I understand that for UK citizens working outside the UK, banking in the IoM was in fact the closest they could practically get to banking in the UK) so there isn’t a lot of public sympathy.
I hesitate to offer good luck, because KSFIOM depositor good luck will mean that future UK citizens who had nothing to do with this fiasco are going to have to stump up even more tax to pay off even more public debt incurred by this heedless government.
I think that current generations have inflicted enough damage on future citizens as it is.