Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

You would like to think that a dutiful monarch would also perform due diligence on her precious little boy's chums and perhaps not send him on playdates with David Rowland, or invite him to royal weddings?

But no, because thanks to the FoI the RF's dealings with the rogue states of the world can all happily fester away behind the royal privilege of secrecy.

Rowland is also one of the biggest donors to the Tory party. No people will fall off chairs in surprise at that, I'm sure.

Banque Havilland was set up in Luxembourg after Kaupthing (an Icelandic banking group) failed in the 2008 crash. There most definitely were loads and loads of EU directives and local laws operating then based on Anti-Money Laundering checks and client acceptance rules. Suggesting otherwise shows how little you know about this area.

Oh, and I’m judging Meghan and Harry as I would judge any other celebrity jumping into bed with this sector of the financial services markets. If a member of the Royal Family had done this I would be absolutely incredulous. You talk about milk advertisements being derisory - this has the potential to cause actual harm.

I agree with the comments made in this FT article (though I note that investment management is of very dubious value to ordinary investors compared to the products referred to below).

“Using celebrities to recommend a clothing brand or perfume is, however, a far cry from promoting complex products such as mortgages and pensions that have long-term consequences for the financial health of consumers.

The rise of celebrity endorsements has been noticed by regulators. In November, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US markets watchdog, published an investor warning in which it made clear that: "It is never a good idea to make an investment decision just because someone famous says a product or service is a good investment."

www.ft.com/content/ca7005fb-e901-3600-9cfc-e464873fadcf

@Serenster

Banque Havilland was set up in Luxembourg after Kaupthing (an Icelandic banking group) failed in the 2008 crash. There most definitely were loads and loads of EU directives and local laws operating then based on Anti-Money Laundering checks and client acceptance rules. Suggesting otherwise shows how little you know about this area.

Ah but I wasn't suggesting otherwise was I? I was suggesting exactly that. Suggesting that I was suggesting otherwise suggests to me that you know even less?

So why were they targeting kleptocrats and countries right at the bottom of the CPI?

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

What due diligence checks?!? Banque Havilland didn't do any!!! It deliberately set out to target kleptocrats and corrupt businessmen and used PA as a "door opener" to facilitate contacts with corrupt monarchies that Rowland wouldn't otherwise have had access to. It's apparently under investigation by the Luxembourg financial regulator.

Financial regulation has (supposedly) tightened up a lot since the early 2000s but I bet they had banking blacklists even back then.

When you said “what due diligence checks” it came across to me that you understood they did not need to do any.

Then you said “Banque Havilland did not do any”. If that were truly the case the investigation would not have taken 3 years (it was started in 2018). So it’s clearly not an open and shut case. Also, it’s time to remind you again that unless and until there is a finding against them, nothing has been proven.

I still have no idea as to why banking blacklists back in the early 2000s would be relevant to a bank that was not formed until 2009. It read like you did not know when Banque Havilland was operative.

As for targeting kleptocrats, there are plenty of institutions out there that compete to gain clients from all countries and all sectors. It is entirely on them to make sure they comply with the relevant rules and regulations, and they take on the risk of doing so. They spread across the entire world. It goes along with Andrew’s terrible judgment that he allied himself with this, I agree.

It’s a murky murky world out there in the world of financial services - always the case when there is lots of money to be made. Hence why I am unimpressed by Meghan and Harry jumping into it themselves.

Serenster is there any end to your knowledge? Banking, the US Justice system, Law, and so on... its breathtaking

However, having skim researched the two companies, I can tell which one I would feel comfortable with. And it's not Banque havilland... have you read anything at all I typed up about them in my posts? The dealings they have with very duplicitous characters, hardly a meritorious bank.

So why were they targeting kleptocrats and countries right at the bottom of the CPI?

And have already been fined for money laundering... £4million.

Hence why I am unimpressed by Meghan and Harry jumping into it themselves
At least they are open and transparent about it, unlike Andrew which is what this thread is about.
At least we are not paying for H&M and they are earning a living, unlike PA who ties himself up with any dodgy scheme or dodgy despot for hard cash, and we fund his extreme wealth lifestyle.

the company only has 29 employees - nowhere near adequate to personally advise investors). They will take a cut of your money at regular intervals o provide this service

And this is something that actually I know a little about. It is wrong of you to say that a company with only 29 employees is incapable of advising investors.
Do you know any IFA's or have any connections with any, Serenster?
I do.
Maybe I know something you don't! It'll make a change!
(I'm cracking a joke here before you think I am being unpleasant to you!)

Sorry to disappoint you Rousette, but I know loads about the investment advice business too.

Ethic is a asset manager though as well as an adviser. They also claim to have “transitioned” more than $1billion since starting, so they are apparently not small fry! For comparison (if we take that figure at face value) that’s bigger than Schroeder’s and Prudential in the UK who are big players.

Oh how could you!

I just know well a couple of people ... an IFA and someone in Wealth Management but of course it won't match your knowledge!

oh well, I tried...

You say they're not small fry but then say they they don't have the expertise with 27 employees....

Anyway, back to Andrew and the press is not good. Even The Times is calling him 'a master of self importance'

"For our old friend Prince Andrew, this week has brought good news and bad. On the one hand he learnt that the Metropolitan Police will take no further action over Virginia Giuffre’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her when she was 17. On the other he now knows that sources in the military and in Whitehall think him an “arrogant shit”, a “total dickhead” and a “self-important bore”. Just a tip, Your Royal Highness: don’t use any of those on your Twitter bio."

the company only has 29 employees - nowhere near adequate to personally advise investors

Not sure where this figure of 29 employees comes from. Their website shows they have at least 42 employees. Other sources suggest that they actually have somewhere between 50 and 60 employees.

Also, it’s time to remind you again that unless and until there is a finding against them, nothing has been proven.

Maybe save the legal posturing for your day job? If we need to give each other reminders then it's time to remind you that here at the Court of Mumsnet, no shits are given about watertight evidence and convicting people.

We're here to have a conversation and maybe challenge a few assumptions.

OP's thread title is about PA and his deplorable ethics. This thread has again shown how many questions there are to be answered. Questions about PA - a representative of the British Crown - not about Rowland or the liability of his bank and certainly not about H&M.

Here are a few more questions. Why is this pile of tosh still on the Duke of York page of the RF website, as of today:

Following 22-years [their hyphen, RF obv can't afford proofreaders] of service with the Royal Navy, The Duke also has an active interest in supporting military organisations and charities His Royal Highness's time is split between supporting The Queen at national and international events and attending his own engagements in the UK and overseas – many of which help promote and reward the work of the charities and organisations of which he is [was] Patron*.

Visiting Azerbaijan and other corrupt monarchies is "promoting and rewarding" who, exactly?

@Roussette On the other he now knows that sources in the military and in Whitehall think him an “arrogant shit”, a “total dickhead” and a “self-important bore” LOL Whitehall must be full of mumsnetters.

Ridiculous that statement is still up.

Just for info... here is a list of the 230 organisations he is now not Patron of.
Huge number of Golf Clubs all over the world... I wonder if they'll drop the 'Royal' in their names.

Excellent news about the number or organisations who don't want him he's drawn back from

However does anyone seriously imagine he'll care what the peasants think of him, military or not? After all it's not as if mummy will insist on him handing the uniforms back, he'll never have to worry about money, and even if he does the shady oligarchs from the "'Stans" will no doubt bail him out, seeing nothing really wrong because they're even worse

I had no idea golf clubs had royal patrons. That is a good wheeze. Go and play a round of golf, have lunch or drinks with a few key people at the golf club, and call it work. And let all the RF supporters bleat on about the difference to charity they make as patrons.

There's a group of golf clubs that have 'royal' status

No idea how it first came about, or whether they all have active patrons

It's the sport with the second highest participation (players and spectators) numbers in Britain (after football) so I'm not completely surprised that it's one of the sports that has patronages

They really dont need patrons. What a waste of our money.

Would you remove all sports from eligibility to have royal patrons?

I'm not sure I would, as sport is such a popular activity (and of course a good thing in itself for a healthy nation)

There are sports initiatives that actually do good and help people who need help. So disabled sports clubs, some of the sports outreach stuff offering opportunities to kids whose families have a low income. They should have patrons.
Golf is largely played by well off people who do not need royal patronage. It just seems an easy con for RF family members who like golf.

There are 64 in UK and round the world bestowed with 'royal' status by our monarchy.
And Andrew was patron of a lot of them... it was a perk of his, so when he went off as a 'trade envoy' he could then play golf at some of the best golf clubs in the world. And call it 'work'.

I bet he hates having to give up this freebie, it must really hurt. I know that golfers can be quite obsessive about it.
The golf good times are gone for him.
I would however love to know if they've dropped the word 'royal' in front of their names....

Golfers called for his patronages to be removed from some of the clubs.
Don't blame them

www.bunkered.co.uk/golf-news/golfers-call-for-prince-andrews-patronages-to-be-revoked

There's a group of golf clubs that have 'royal' status

64 in UK and around the world.

And knowing how PA used this privilege I'm inclined to agree with julieca.
It was abused by him.

@julieca

They really dont need patrons. What a waste of our money.

How is that a waste of our money? It costs absolutely nothing in terms of public funding for a member of the RF to be a patron of a charity or any other organisation.

@prh47bridge we pay their costs when they travel to official engagements. When Andrew flew to a RF engagement as a Patron, that costs us.

Golf is largely played by well off people Not in Scotland. Many municipal golf courses including the one in our tiny town.
www.scottishgolfcourses.com/atoz.html#:~:text=A%20to%20Z%20list%20of%20Scottish%20Golf%20Courses.,Dalfaber%20Golf%20Club.%20Dougalston%20Golf%20...%20More%20items

[quote julieca]@prh47bridge we pay their costs when they travel to official engagements. When Andrew flew to a RF engagement as a Patron, that costs us.[/quote]
No, we don't. That stopped when the Sovereign Grant was introduced. Travel costs come out of that. The amount of the Grant is a fixed percentage of the income the government receives from the Crown Estate. It makes absolutely no difference to the cost to the taxpayer whether Andrew flies to an official engagement, walks there or stays at home.