Dive into the corporate fraud case analysis of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Explore how the absence of a Board of Directors, lax corporate governance, and inadequate risk management led to its downfall. Uncover the role of regulatory gaps, ineffective audit systems, and strategic mismanagement in this infamous financial collapse.
Absence of Board of Directors Leads To A Corporate Fraud Case Analysis: Bank of Credit And Commerce International (BCCI)
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATION (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Pakistani financer Agha Hassan Abedi. It was incorporated in Luxemburg with head offices in Karachi and London. The Primary aim of this financial institution was to serve clients from 3rd world countries who did not have access to such advanced facilities. This bank witnessed rapid growth over a period of time. Their strategy was to acquire various small financial institutions working in their domain by 1991 it was operating in 78 countries and 420 different offices.
Although all reports showed that they were in good profits. Due to extensive reckless- lending the bank was in an alarming amount of bad debt. Various financial regulators as well as intelligence agencies worldwide started to scrutinize the operation of BCCI. The main question was as to why such losses were not visible in the account records of the bank. This was because all such transactions were being done through its subsidiary institutions in the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands are well known for its absolutely non-effective banking as well as tax regulations. These subsidiaries were referred to as “dustbins”, as they helped in covering up.
Another strategy that was used by them for the recovery of losses was “proprietary trading.” Proprietary trading refers to a financial firm or commercial bank that invests for direct market gain rather than earning commission dollars by trading on behalf of clients. The Volcker Rule prohibits banks and bank holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading, owning hedge funds, or participating in private equity funds to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain customer-focused operations.
This initiative by the bank made the situation worse. The bank continued through fraudulent accounting and massive misappropriation of depositor’s funds. It was alleged that its Panama branch acted as a medium for Money Laundering for Latin American drug lords.
In 1991 PWC published a report called “Sandstorm Report” which not only revealed but proved that a major chunk of BCCI’s transactions were illegal in nature. It indicated massive manipulation of non-performing loans, fictitious transactions, and concealment of losses. In July 1991 customs and bank regulators seized its branches in the UK, USA, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Luxemburg. Immediately its assets were liquidated so that the depositor’s money could be reimbursed and avoid a situation of economic chaos.
To understand this, we must look at the primary reason why such a prominent financial institution collapsed. To begin with, BCCI has a very Lax Corporate Governance System. The internal management was not capable of handling such a huge institution. The bank officials prioritized their agendas over their duty to the bank. They often manipulated transactions for their profits which consistently went unchecked. This general fraud was happening openly yet no one could take a stand against it. The fundamentals of foreseeing any future risks and ensuring its management were ignored. The organizational structure was very complex. Their treasury functioned in a misappropriate manner and record-keeping practices were poor. Their loans were untenable therefore the acquisition rates were poor.
We further need to look at the entire episode with the aspect of corporate governance and its principles. Firstly the Risk Management policy about the governance of the Bank was inadequate. It made huge loans to companies as well as individuals without properly securing them. This highlighted massive credit risk. Often these were not even properly documented due to this they were left with no recourse for recovery in a situation in which loans went bad. They were left with absolutely no legal recourse to back them up. This created a financial environment where they were forced to absorb losses. This is a practice that is against the very fundamentals of good lending. In the absence of a risk management strategy, there was a cover-up strategy as the bank had to create a Matrix of false accounts and deposits to keep functioning.
Another major problem was a non-existent Board of directors. This was completely managed by the owner and the CEO. 248 managers and general managers worldwide directly reported to these 2 entities. They had developed an intricate international web of financial institutions and shell companies to escape regulations and indulge in dubious lending. All of this could easily be avoided if a properly functioning BOD existed. It can be considered a classic example of responsibility in the absence of accountability. The 2 entities had everything under their control not only were they the prime authority over all decisions but also they were not answerable to anyone for it.
An important element in this regard is the lack of regulatory supervision over the bank. The structure of BCCI was in such a way that it did not fall under the jurisdiction of a single country. Interestingly 2 of its holding companies were in Luxemburg and Cayman Island. This was strategically planned as both of these countries had very weak Banking Regulations. BCCI was set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review and operate extensively in the Bank Secrecy Jurisdiction. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex and lacked transparency purposely to ensure the funneling of illegal money to disreputable clients like arms dealers, drug lords, insurgents, and terrorist groups.
Lastly, it’s “ineffective Audit System”. It was unusual in the sense that 2 of its holdings were audited by PWC and Ernst & Young while other subsidiaries were audited by neither. In such a situation it’s clearly evident on the face of it that all efforts to cover up through illegal transactions are being made. An effective audit system could’ve avoided more than 80% of the financial fraud that happened over a period of time.
Author Bio
