CISX probe appears to lack transparency and fairness

It was, to use their own words, supposed to be 'transparent, dispassionate and wholly procedurally fair.' How can it be transparent if it is not published in full? How can it be procedurally fair to levy a record fine while finding no one to blame?

If the regulator is prepared to make itself look so blatantly inept or worse, the reputational damage will obviously be enormous. Does this mean that revealing the real truth would have been even worse?

Where are the details of the GFSC's two-year investigation? Will it ever be published in full? Did the commission examine the exchange's practices in the light of Clerkenwell? Let's not forget that two individuals were jailed in the UK over the Clerkenwell affair. It would be remarkable if the GFSC had completely ignored Clerkenwell given its high profile, and if that were the case, then that too would be worthy of explanation.

And what of the Elysian Fuels listing – what did the commission make of that?

If, as claimed by the directors of the outgoing exchange, the Tubby Report was seriously and materially flawed, did the GFSC evidence those claims? Clearly either the Tubby Report or the GFSC's investigation or both are grossly wide of the mark. In most countries, if a regulator or investigator or stock exchange behaved in such a fashion, they would be grilled by the equivalent of a parliamentary select committee.

Unless something like that happens here, it is hard to see how the public can have confidence in the regulator of the island's main industry, or in the CISEA (given that it is stuffed full of the same individuals who were involved with CISX) or in the States, whose members promised more accountability and as the island's lawmakers are empowered to intervene in the public interest, which surely includes the reputation and wellbeing of the economy. They don't seem to have much trouble intervening 'in the public interest' when it comes to what they say are 'alternative' health remedies.

As the final paragraph of Private Eye's latest article says: 'If they are serious about their reputation, Guernsey politicians should demand that the GFSC findings are published and question those involved – responsible or not.'

So once again, those who ran for election promising accountability and transparency are set to fail us in that regard. But this actually goes beyond the issue of no one being accountable; we should be distinctly uncomfortable about the concept of an authority fining a 'person' while deeming them to be blameless. If we live in a society where you can be found to have done nothing wrong yet still be on the wrong end of a record fine, it is surely time to turn to crime.'

MATT WATERMAN,

Flat 2,

3, Burnt Lane,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1HL.

Editor's footnote: Dale Holmes, commission secretary, responds: 'Thank you for forwarding the reader's letter and for the opportunity for the commission to comment, which we do as follows:

'The Commission sought advice from senior London counsel as to whether enforcement action was appropriate and it also obtained from the Royal Court a declaration as to the scope of its powers to appoint a decision-maker who was not a commissioner in order to ensure that the process was robust and independent.

Subsequently, the commission appointed an advisory committee consisting of HM Procureur and the chairman of the Bar of England and Wales to recommend a Queen's Counsel suitable to be appointed as an independent decision-maker.

The commission appointed the recommended Queen's Counsel and delegated to him the function of deciding whether or not to impose any sanction on individuals.

It is noteworthy that in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, it is normal for enforcement proceedings against firms and individuals within the financial services sector to be held in camera and it is not unusual for corporate bodies within the financial services sector to admit a failing and pay a fine while no individuals are sanctioned.'