Talk:Standard Chartered/Archives/2015

Allegation against content-removal
"...[t]here have been instances of companies or individuals working at companies creating or modifying articles in order to make their company appear more favorably. This practice is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and is frowned upon by the community in general and this WikiProject." I have noticed that the theoretical inputs (as expected in Wikipedia) and sections on Standard Chartered bank's scams, ethical frauds, messy past, the hidden agenda behind their welfare projects, their collusion with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. in India and its subsequent list of complaints URLs are continuously deleted/removed by some persons or probably by the company and thus Wikipedia is used as a part of Company's propaganda machine. I have strong objection against such practice by a Company, who is publicly branded as "ethical fraud". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.149.37 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What you are trying to add is some kind of Marxist critique of Standard Chartered, and major corporations in general. Interesting but not appropriate for this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rangoon11, Apart from Marxist critique, there are names like B. Russell, Derrida, Baudrillard & Adam smith, who are not Marxists along with some documents that prove their non-transparent activities. Especially I must mention the removed section, "Collaboration with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company."--why this was removed--for whose interest? There are many allegations against such collusion. There was no Marxist critique on that topic. Wikipedia, to me, is for dissemination of knowledge--not for the propaganda of a ethical fraud corporate, who are ready to promote neo-colonial techniques. Do they donate you for un-editable document for editing? Are you promoting corporate? Therefore, I'm attaching here the deleted document for public opinion: Standard Chartered Bank's removed Wikipedia page://www.scribd.com/doc/108597959/Standard-Chartered-Bank-s-removed-Wikipedia-page — Preceding Pl. note my friend's comment:https://www.facebook.com/debaprasad.bandyopadhyay/posts/249868121802931?notif_t=share_comment unsigned comment added by 117.226.200.138 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an example of part of the text which was attempted to be added:
 * "This type of switch over form banking to soccer reflects distraction from real to simulated game with a view to hide various mischief committed by the bank. Noam Chomsky rightly observed, "Sports...is another crucial example of the indoctrination system... Already the man was inching onto sacred ground...Sports offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. ... [sports are] training in irrational jingoism". Baudrillard also described this simulated reality, though in a different language, " "Empty war: it brings to mind those games in World Cup football which often have to be decided by penalties (sorry spectacle), because of the impossibility of forcing a decision. As though the players punished themselves by means of 'penalties' for not having been able to play and take the match in full battle. We might as well have begun with the penalties and dispensed with the game and its sterile stand-off. So with the war Gulf War: it could have begun at the end and spared us the forced spectacle of this unreal war where nothing is extreme and which, whatever the outcome, will leave behind the smell of undigested programming, and the entire world irritated as though after an unsuccessful copulation." "


 * This is essay-type pseudo intellectualism (Marxist or otherwise) which is non-specific to Standard Chartered and not appropriate for this article.
 * The "criticism" about Bajaj Allianz is sourced to Facebook and two blogs. It also had the same issues of containing essay style commentary which is non-specific to the topic of this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Rangoon11, You must have to justify the word "pseudo intellectualism". Your de-contextualized quote proves that you are a pseudo intellectual (as you cannot associate theories of banking system with the consumerist propaganda machinery of the same system)  working for the corporate and hiding (you do not quote Bajaj-SCB nexus)their mischief. If you have some spare time to look into the grievances of the people against the ethical fraud committed by the Bank by searching net, you will hear the sounds of crying (if you are not a hearing impaired or not a part of pay roll of the corporate). Kindly note that the blue-colored references are within the periphery of Wikipedia--relating them to one another reflects the domain of wis(h)dom. If you segregate or compartmentalize informationItalic text without the knowledge of networking, you cannot achieve wis(h)domItalic text(cf. Eliot's Choruses from the RockItalic text). It is not expected from the team of Wikipedia, who declared,"...[t]here have been instances of companies or individuals working at companies creating or modifying articles in order to make their company appear more favorably. This practice is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines and is frowned upon by the community in general and this WikiProject." The page on SCB is now an example of best advertisement. Therefore, I'm again posting the related portion of the text. Best regards, Your most obedient servant, Bandyopadhyay,D. anekanta@gamil.com bandyo@isical.ac.in P.S.: My mental state is not in a very good condition after being deceived by SCB-BA collusion. It is not only a question of money, but the question of trust and that trust was broken by the SCB employees or trapped by a fraud bank, who is committed to neo-colonization. Therefore, if there is any mistake in my discourse, please pardon me.


 * In concise and reasonable sense, it occurred to me, as a reader, and as a regular user of highly-famed people-friendly Wikipedia, that, why not to keep D. Bandyopadhyay's observations? I'm sorry to say nothing occurred that might be wrong with his observations. On the contrary to Rangoon11's alleged remarks pseudo intellectualism and some kind of marxian critique, these wordings and shifting of the grounds of reasoning seem to contradict with Wikipedia's purpose as a whole. Why, if I may ask, shouldn't we learn or hear about reflections provided by experiences on par context with Standard Chartered and their collusion with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. in India? Will it not be blacking out a part of history of conductions? In which case, will not the people be lacking information to take decision about correct of conduct in Banking? If be, one among many, I, sure do not want to be lacking in information. Thank you. (Anik Singha (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

Collaboration with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company In India
Standard Chartered Bank introduced many insurance cum investment policies in collaboration with [Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co]. with covert high allocation charges. However, it is alleged that there are several loopholes and lacking of transparencies in their products, therefore a neologism is used to depict the situation, de jure "ethical fraud". However, empirical case studies are to be incorporated to prove this "ethical fraud" by the Bankers. One example of opacity in policy bond (?) may be cited Thus, it is better to call the collaboration as, following Adam Smith, [collusion]:"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice."

This portion is again and again deleted. Perhaps StanChart-Bajaj Allianz sponsored editor is scared about this--they wish to hide something. Even in the main page, there is nothing on this topic. Why do they not advertise it in Wikipedia? Perhaps, they fear the many grievances, as found in the net-searching, against this nexus.
 * Or perhaps people, like me, who are not sponsored by Standard Chartered, are tired of one-sided vituperative comments. There is no need to resort to ad hominem attacks. You are certainly welcome to start a new page on criticism of Standard Chartered.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ronin, Kindly tell me: Why they are scared to put this section, "Collaboration with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company In India" with n-(many)sided views (anekantavada) in the main article? Are they scared? Why don't they put this section as an advertisement? I'm sorry to say that the main article page violates Wiki's policy as it is an ad of a corporate. Pl. see the note 3 for perceiving SCB's opaque operation. Dear Ronin, many people are crying for SCB's fishy activities--you'll find them by searching at net or in the real world. I'm preparing the list of victims. My research on Banking System 'll be published soon with a goal to establish money-less resource-based green economy, nor we can't combat anthropogenic global warming.Lastly, one personal question: do you still trust a bank with a history of Harshad Mehta connection and Iran scandal??? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.170.136 (talk)  14:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Standard Chartered Bank introduced many insurance cum investment policies in collaboration with Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. with covert high allocation charges. However, it is alleged that there are several loopholes and lacking of transparencies in their products, therefore a neologism is used to depict the situation, de jure "ethical fraud". However, empirical case studies(One policy bond[?], that infringes the right to information of the consumer is shown here as an example of extreme opacity ) are to be incorporated to prove this "ethical fraud" by the Bankers. Thus, it is better to call the collaboration as, following Adam Smith, collusion:"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice."

Advertisement of the Standard Chartered Bank
This page is nothing more than an advertisement of an ethical fraud. It is not expected from Wiki. However the propagators of Banks could not remove the messy past of the Bank--from 1992 Harshad Mehta scam to 2012 Iran as those facts are known to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.212.37 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Criminal History of Standard Chartered Bank
[Standard Chartered Bank]•	Involved in Beirut bombing case in 1983, though the case was withdrawn for unknown reason (2012). The same thing happened to its1992 FERA violation case (The Financial Express, NEW DELHI, NOV 17 2012, 01:18 IST). In the both cases, somehow they had escaped the allegations. “The estates of victims of the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut have dropped a lawsuit against Standard Chartered Plc (STAN.L) that accused the bank of concealing Iranian transactions that could have satisfied a $2.67 billion (1.65 billion pounds) judgment.” (Reuters, NEW YORK | Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:58pm GMT)

•	Involved in illicit drug trafficking: The Justice Department has signed similar agreements, withholding prosecution in exchange for bank promises to tighten oversight, …Barclays and Standard Chartered. All admitted to criminal offenses; all were handed the equivalent of traffic tickets — pay a fine on your way out the door.” (Source: The Opinion Page, January 2, 2013)

•	Involved in Harshad Mehta scam 1992 : “Standard Chartered Bank’s draft red herring prospectus to raise $500 million-$700 million through the first-ever issue of Indian Depository Receipts (IDRs) has completely blanked out at least 15 litigations pending against it in connection with the securities scam of 1992 and a foreign exchange scandal involving the misuse of its vostro account, also in the 1990s.The prospectus has reportedly been cleared by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which is fully aware that most litigations pertaining to the 1992 scam are still dragging their way through the Indian judicial system. It is shocking that the Bank has attempted to avoid disclosure, given that the Bank's deep involvement in the scam is widely known in India and the IDRs are being sold to Indian investors. What is worse, when asked about the failure to disclose litigation pending against the Bank, SEBI has chosen to not to respond to the emails marked to the entire top brass of the Bank.” (Source: Sucheta Dalal, “Standard Chartered tries to cover up its messy past, but SEBI is in a slumber “ Standard Chartered tries to cover up its messy past, but SEBI is in a slumber  April 14, 2010)

•	Involved in money-laundering in Iran 2012 : “IN A bombshell statement New York’s Department of Financial Services added Standard Chartered, a British bank, to the rank of financial institutions under siege, calling it a “rogue institution”. It accuses Standard Chartered of executing 60,000 secret transactions worth $250 billion for Iranian customers in exchange for “hundreds of millions of dollars” in fees. In a footnote the regulator also says that there is evidence of similar “schemes” with other countries subject to American sanctions, including Libya, Myanmar and Sudan.” (Source: The Economist, Aug 6th 2012, 22:07 by T.E. | NEW YORK)

•	Standard Chartered follows dubious distinction of Citibank, 4 clients duped of crores: “ In yet another banking fraud at the hands of greedy relationship managers of the foreign banks, some employees of StanChart are believed to have duped a few wealthy clients. According to reports, a few relationship managers at Standard Chartered Bank's private banking businesshere have mis-sold debt securities to some of its private banking clients with a promise to buy them back at higher returns, something which is not possible under the existing regulations.” (Source: Economic Times, 30 APR, 2011, 08.45PM IST, PTI ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.36.166 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)