Storm Financial Group

[Frank Ainslie]

This is an easy one to answer. When CFS and Challenger were told to sell everyone down by EC and crew to "go to cash temporarily" they would have sold to the market.

To explain further - an index fund is simply a fund that invests into the underlying stocks that make up the index in the same weightings. So if you are investing into a mining index fund and BHP makes up 10% of that index, the fund will buy and hold 10% of BHP.

When the instructions came through to sell, the index funds simply sell their individual holdings into the market.

So who bought them? Everybody and anybody that was buying when those who were panicking were selling. Remember for every seller there is a buyer on the other end.



400 people average on the Med trip (roughly 10% of the client base) and 2 times that to South Africa (20%) so there were a few that joined in. I don't think many begrudge this as it was fully funded from their cashflow, but on the other side of the coin there is still the issue of Stormies in retirement (sorry Frank got to use you again) that probably would have been living on 60-70K pa that were given living allowances by storm of $90-100K. Those who had been with storm for longer than Frank had done quite well living on 20-30% more than another more conservative investor with the same "personal" not borrowed asset base.

I too hope everyone has a safe and happy break.

Signing off from the darkside

Hi Doobsy,

I must say that your postings of late have been very informative. I particularly appreciated your views on the Storm SOA. It's a pity we didn't get some advice from you before we joined Storm. Believe me, we would have taken notice of what you had to say. The problem is that there's no sign hanging on a financial adviser's shingle saying, "We're the good guys!"

If we do get some money back and are looking to invest again, I'll be seeking out your advice. Don't hold your breath though! I'll be probably burying it in the garden if I have my way.

Incidentally, we may have got a "living allowance" of $8000 per month but we certainly didn't spend that money foolishly but put most of it away. How do you think we are managing to survive today? Further, it came out of our money, not anything Storm generated for us.

I often wonder just how many Storm clients really knew the true value of their portfolios once the debt had been extracted? Not many I suspect. We heard a lot about people making money in Storm but I have reservations about the true worth of their portfolios. We came in just as the Storm gathered so we didn't see any benefits whatsoever. I doubt that many did from the middle of 2007 onwards.

Don't stay too long on the dark side. It can be detrimental to your financial health.

Wishing you and yours a happy Christmas.

 

[Frank Ainslie]

I've sent a Christmas present to ASIC via David Bradbury

"The Hon David Bradbury MP - Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer.
Parliament House
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

23rd December 2011

Dear Sir,

re: We accuse ASIC (1) of failing to protect Storm Financial investors and (2) failing to charge the CBA in like manner to the BOQ and the Macquarie Bank.

As I understand it, ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator. It is an independent Commonwealth Government body set up under and administer the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (ASIC Act), and, as such, it carries out most of its work under the Corporations Act.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 requires ASIC to among other things, enforce and give effect to the law. It is also responsible for ensuring that it provides investors with suitable protection by ensuring that consumer laws are abided by. I put it to you that in the case of Storm’s investors, ASIC has failed in its duty of care.

1. Failure to protect Storm’s investors

When we signed up with Storm Financial we had to sign off on page 96 of the Statement of Advice relating to the aforementioned section:

“CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 912B

Compensation arrangements if financial services provided to persons as retail clients

(1) If a financial services licensee provides a financial service to persons as retail clients, the licensee must have arrangements for compensating those persons for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of the relevant obligations under this Chapter by the licensee or its representatives. The arrangements must meet the requirements of subsection 2.

(2) The arrangements must:

[a) if the regulations specify requirements that are applicable to all arrangements, or to arrangements of that kind-satisfy those requirements; or

[b) be approved in writing by ASIC.

(3) Before approving arrangements under paragraph (2)[b), ASIC must have regard to:

[a) the financial services covered by the licence; and

[b) whether the arrangements will continue to cover persons after the licensee ceases carrying on the business of providing financial services, and the length of time for which that cover will continue; and

[c) any other matters that are prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.

(4) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3)[c) may, in particular, prescribe additional details in relation to the matters to which ASIC must have regard under paragraphs (3)[a) and [b).

The CORPORATION ACT – SECTION 912B states that it is ASIC’s responsibility to ensure that adequate and extended insurance cover is in place so that compensation is readily available to retail clients if the “licensee ceases carrying on the business of providing financial services, and the length of time for which that cover will continue.”

When we signed up with Storm Financial, (indeed, we signed off on this) we did so on the basis that we were protected by the Corporations Act for wrongdoing, and we could rely on this particular Section of the Act among others.

Since the Storm collapse our former Storm financial adviser, Mr. Stuart Drummond, has been investigated by ASIC who found that he did not comply with financial services laws in relation to advice he provided to a number of his clients between October 2004 and July 2008. In particular, ASIC found Mr Drummond:

* made false and misleading statements in breach of s1041E of the Corporations Act 2001,
* engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under s1041H of the Corporations Act 2001,
* promoted the Storm strategy without considering the suitability of the strategy for individual clients,
* provided Statements of Advice and Statements of Additional Advice containing misleading and deceptive information in order to induce them to invest using the Storm strategy, and
* didn’t have an understanding of the nature and risks of financial products recommended on the basis of the Storm strategy.

Yet, we find that we still cannot claim under Storm’s professional indemnity insurance because it was woefully inadequate.

The Storm client losses have been estimated at $3 billion dollars and yet Storm only had a PI insurance cover of between $25m million and $45 million? Further, it was inadequate because it did not extend the life of the cover beyond the 07/08 policy.

The insurer for Storm was AIG/Chartis who provided professional indemnity insurance to Storm for the period 21 November 2007 to 10 December 2008. This was a 'Claims made' policy which only provides cover for claims made against the insured during the policy period. Such policies invariably include a deeming provision, under which the insurance is extended to claims made outside of the policy period, provided they arise from circumstances notified to insurers within it.

Storm’s PI had no such “deeming clause” so Storm’s PI was not only inadequate in terms of the dollar coverage amount, but even if we had lodged a claim after the event, it would have made no difference anyway. Certainly, we had no chance of notifying the insurer within the period covered even if a “deeming clause” had been written into the policy because we were not aware of any wrongdoing until well after the misbehavior had occurred. Indeed, we couldn’t even find out who Storm’s insurer was until a year or so later. This makes a mockery of Storm’s PI insurance which was not worth the paper it was written on.

So where was ASIC in all this? You tell me! Certainly, it was not protecting Storm’s clients’ interests by allowing Storm to be grossly under-insured and by allowing it to take out an ineffective insurance policy. By so neglecting its duty, ASIC closed off an important avenue of compensation for Storm’s clients. Why, therefore, should we not be looking to compensation from this Government for our losses?

2) Failing to charge the CBA in like manner to the BOQ and Macquarie Bank.

I have written five times to ASIC on this subject and I have still not received a reply. I only hope your Department is not dead to the world as well?

Can you please explain to me why ASIC is not also pursuing the Commonwealth Bank of Australia at this time on the same grounds as the BOQ and the Macquarie Bank; namely,

* breach of contract (breach of Banking Codes of Practice);
* contravention of the statutory prohibitions against unconscionable conduct;
* liability as linked credit providers of Storm - section 73 of the TPA Act 1974.

Exactly the same circumstances and outcomes were present in CBA’s dealings with Storm Financial. Why has ASIC left the CBA out of the equation?’ In fact the CBA is the worst offender and it is therefore insulting to all those that lost money in Storm to have them excluded. Many former CBA/Storm clients did not accept the CBA resolution scheme proposals. Surely, it is therefore mandatory under our system of law that the CBA be also charged by ASIC for the transgressions mentioned above as well as operating an unregistered managed investment scheme? Why therefore have these charges not been laid?

I hope you will give this complaint the consideration it deserves because these are serious matters and demand a full and comprehensive response from this Government and those that are responsible in ASIC for protecting investors in this country.

 

[bunyip]

Personally I still get so angry that we their clients have been held responsible for this mess

HQ

Who are these people who hold ex-Storm clients responsible for the Storm debacle?

If these people exist, then I’d suggest they’re very much in the minority.

 

[Julia]

I don't think many begrudge this as it was fully funded from their cashflow, but on the other side of the coin there is still the issue of Stormies in retirement (sorry Frank got to use you again) that probably would have been living on 60-70K pa that were given living allowances by storm of $90-100K. Those who had been with storm for longer than Frank had done quite well living on 20-30% more than another more conservative investor with the same "personal" not borrowed asset base.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse here, Doobsy, but I don't get the above. What does "were given living allowances by Storm of $90 - $100K" mean, for example?
Given by whom?

 

[Solly]

"Storm victims' poignant tales

VICTIMS of the Storm Financial collapse believe a new documentary will quash a "widespread belief that we were nothing more than a group of greedy punters who rolled the dice and lost".

More by Kieran Campbell @ sunshinecoastdaily.com.au

 

[Solly]

I've sent a Christmas present to ASIC via David Bradbury

"The Hon David Bradbury MP - Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer.
Parliament House
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

23rd December 2011

Dear Sir,

re: We accuse ASIC (1) of failing to protect Storm Financial investors and (2) failing to charge the CBA in like manner to the BOQ and the Macquarie Bank.

As I understand it, ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator. It is an independent Commonwealth Government body set up under and administer the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act (ASIC Act), and, as such, it carries out most of its work under the Corporations Act.

........................................

Frank, I look forward to you posting the response.
S

 

[Judd]

....The question on a lot of Stormies lips is "Who bought all the Stormies units in Challenger and Colonial First State when we were all sold down?"

This is an easy one to answer. When CFS and Challenger were told to sell everyone down by EC and crew to "go to cash temporarily" they would have sold to the market.

To explain further - an index fund is simply a fund that invests into the underlying stocks that make up the index in the same weightings. So if you are investing into a mining index fund and BHP makes up 10% of that index, the fund will buy and hold 10% of BHP.

When the instructions came through to sell, the index funds simply sell their individual holdings into the market.

So who bought them? Everybody and anybody that was buying when those who were panicking were selling. Remember for every seller there is a buyer on the other end.

And overall, each share trade in respect of Storms index funds would be a mere blip in the market. When you look at the basket of shares held in STW (ASX 200 index fund)as at 21/12/11, ANZ accounts for 10,290 shares, BHP 12,589. In the scheme of things, nothing more than small change. And that is for an index fund with a total value of $1,979,000,000. The relativities when Storm funds were closed versus STW would have been around the same.

I'd be more interested in who were the dastard(s) who redeemed over $500M from an initial $700m in funds across the various Storm indexed funds as they were sinking into the mire. Assuming, of course, that the information provided to the Parliamentary Inquiry is correct. Most odd if advisers were, indeed, told not to sell clients out.

That aside, I do wish all members of this forum the best for the Season. In particular, whatever the season, I offer my best wishes to those Storm clients affected by a complete breakdown in the application of ethics and moral standards which we all believe should apply.

 

[Solly]

Storm Financial Advisor Penalties Welcomed

Victims of the collapsed North Queensland company, Storm Financial, have welcomed penalties against three former financial advisors. One has been suspended by the corporate watchdog for two years and the others must take courses and have their work scrutinised.

From ABC PM http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3397471.htm

 

[Harleyquin]

Bunyip when storm first collapsed, one of the first things I read in the media, somewhere, was that we were all a mob of greedy investors. I saw another financial advisor who told me that we had a good legal case, so I rang a legal group and the fellow on the other end of the phone said "you people crow in the good times and cry when you get burnt".

At that time I had no idea what he was talking about as I thought we were simply people seeking financial advice who had asked for a conservative financial plan. We told our advisor "low to no risk" and our paperwork supports this.

Obviously we made several mistakes, number one believing and trusting financial advisors and banks. I haven't seen the documentary "Piggy Banks" as we haven't been close enough to any screenings. I think that we are now seeing more understanding from those not involved than we ever saw three years ago. Hopefully that will continue as I would like to see something positive done to make it more difficult for a storm scenario to reoccur.

The government, financial and legal industry need to acknowledge where the true problems lie and not just brush it under the carpet so that it can happen again. We, the Stormies, have been far too badly burnt by this and we have two main options.

1. To lie down and die or
2. To fight for justice

I think you will find that most of us would rather die fighting for justice, after all we have nothing of any real monetary value left. We've all been backed into a corner and we will continue to fight. We need an honest and trustworthy financial system in this country and until we get one the general population needs to be aware that under our present system they can be fleeced by the very people we need to seek advice from.

As Frank has said, financial people don't have a sign on their doors saying "we're the good guys". We've even been told 'get over it and move on". My response to this is "why should we sit back and accept such criminal behavior". The other thing is, storm is not the first, or the last to do this to their clients.

I feel for the good guys in the financial world, they too will suffer the fallout from this.

 

[Solly]

"ASIC punishment of Storm advisers 'weak'

A FORMER investor with Storm Financial has expressed disgust at "weak" responses from the corporate watchdog to disciplining rogue advisers with the financial planning company."

More by Tony Raggatt @ townsvillebulletin.com.au

 

[Frank Ainslie]

More by Tony Raggatt @ townsvillebulletin.com.au

Hi Solly,

This is disgraceful! There were a considerable number of Storm financial advisers that stepped over the line. I know this from reading countless submissions made to the PJC and other stories I have read on the Internet. Yet, only a few Storm advisers have been taken to task, and they have been suspended rather than kicked out of the industry altogether.

You cannot join the police force if you have a criminal record. Why therefore should advisers that have destroyed people's lives now find employment as financial advisers again once they have served their time?

To my mind, this is just one more example of just how weak ASIC really is in punishing the wrongdoers. It makes one wonder now just how hard ASIC will come down on the directors of Storm?

It's a good day for those Storm financial advisers that have escaped the net but it's a black day for their clients who placed their trust in them only to be deceived.

It's Christmas so it's a good time to get drunk. When I recover, I'll be expressing my disgust to ASIC in no uncertain terms. Watch this space!

 

[Solly]

Hi Solly,

This is disgraceful! There were a considerable number of Storm financial advisers that stepped over the line. I know this from reading countless submissions made to the PJC and other stories I have read on the Internet. Yet, only a few Storm advisers have been taken to task, and they have been suspended rather than kicked out of the industry altogether.

You cannot join the police force if you have a criminal record. Why therefore should advisers that have destroyed people's lives now find employment as financial advisers again once they have served their time?

To my mind, this is just one more example of just how weak ASIC really is in punishing the wrongdoers. It makes one wonder now just how hard ASIC will come down on the directors of Storm?

It's a good day for those Storm financial advisers that have escaped the net but it's a black day for their clients who placed their trust in them only to be deceived.

It's Christmas so it's a good time to get drunk. When I recover, I'll be expressing my disgust to ASIC in no uncertain terms. Watch this space!

Hi Frank

Oh dear, I just had a strange image of you propped up on a bar stool in the Public Bar at the Ross Island, with GG buying you your sixth schooner of NQ Lager, in an hour...

I'm sure your response to ASIC will be excellently penned as usual.

Have a great Christmas and I hope you can put those Storm woes to the background for a few days !

S

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Hi Doobsy,

Hi Doobsy,

No doubt you are away enjoying Christmas and I am about to do the same so answer this when you can!

I have an important question for you. From the extracts I have given you so far of the SOA, "How long would it take a half-way decent financial adviser to ascertain that this was a high-risk plan suitable to about 1% of investors?" One needs to bear in mind when answering this that the SOA was some 107 pages long. One hour, two hours, or how long to assess the risk nature of this proposal?

I will be writing again to ASIC after Christmas and I need your professional input (no names mentioned). If anyone else in the industry would care to comment, please feel free to do so. Many thanks!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hi Solly,

This is disgraceful! There were a considerable number of Storm financial advisers that stepped over the line. I know this from reading countless submissions made to the PJC and other stories I have read on the Internet. Yet, only a few Storm advisers have been taken to task, and they have been suspended rather than kicked out of the industry altogether.

You cannot join the police force if you have a criminal record. Why therefore should advisers that have destroyed people's lives now find employment as financial advisers again once they have served their time?

To my mind, this is just one more example of just how weak ASIC really is in punishing the wrongdoers. It makes one wonder now just how hard ASIC will come down on the directors of Storm?

It's a good day for those Storm financial advisers that have escaped the net but it's a black day for their clients who placed their trust in them only to be deceived.

It's Christmas so it's a good time to get drunk. When I recover, I'll be expressing my disgust to ASIC in no uncertain terms. Watch this space!

Totally agree Frank, totally agree.

Get in the ear of your local member as well, the new arrangements by Minister Shorten will guarantee a repeat of this down the track.

Hi Frank

Oh dear, I just had a strange image of you propped up on a bar stool in the Public Bar at the Ross Island, with GG buying you your sixth schooner of NQ Lager, in an hour...

I'm sure your response to ASIC will be excellently penned as usual.

Have a great Christmas and I hope you can put those Storm woes to the background for a few days !

S

That is a great idea Solly, we can come to some arrangement to book the place out on a weekend and I am sure the Townsville mob would arrange billets for the out of towners.

Once the civil litigation is done, and a few, and it will only be a few unfortunately, have gone to the Creek to serve time, we can arrange something.

A few Stormers are so impoverished that they would barely afford a good night out, and like my mate, proud self sufficient people and may need a bit of encouragement to come.

The Ross Island Crew have quite disimilar characteristics to Storm Financial and the Banks, however they get punished more severely by visits to the Creek for minor transgressions, but the main difference is that they ARE HONEST, GOOD PEOPLE, and would host the Stormers royally.

Perhaps ASIC might be persuaded to shout the bar, it would be the only useful thing they will have done in this whole muppet saga.

gg

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Sorry if I'm being obtuse here, Doobsy, but I don't get the above. What does "were given living allowances by Storm of $90 - $100K" mean, for example?
Given by whom?

Julia,

It should be remembered when considering ‘Living Expenses’ that any expenses we would incur were included in Storm’s viability assessment that would still leave room for Storm’s plan to be effective. We know now that this wasn't so!

“Living Expenses" were the amounts paid to us (supposedly from the earnings on our shares) to cover everyday expenses (our utilities and everyday living expenses including an income). We also paid our housing loans from these living expenses.

During the 15 months we were in Storm, we received $136,000 for “Living Expenses’. We paid out $51,645 in house repayments leaving a balance of $84355 or $5,624 per month. When I say, "we received" it's a bit of a misnomer. We were actually paying ourself (under the arrangement set up) from our CMT account.

The problem was that these expenses were being paid directly from our ‘Macquarie Cash Management Account’ (cash reserve) which was not being replenished sufficiently by any dividends from our shares. Consequently, these cash reserves were eroded away over the course of time.

“SOA Page 50 - Recommendations - Residual Reserves of approximately $160,000 plus any funds not earmarked for your immediate use in the Macquarie Investment
Management Limited Cash Management Trust."

This amount was boosted by additional payments we subsequently made into the CMT account.

“SOA Page 85 - Cash reserves of around $285,000 will be your primary form of protection from the effects of varying returns from your Share Investment. The plan also builds in capacity to take advantage of buying opportunities and handle this inevitable market volatility. This capacity is incorporated within the unused capacity for borrowing using the Shares as security for the loans (these are termed Margin Loans).

As explained, these Cash Reserves are a part of your Investment, and under no circumstances should they be viewed as finance for consumption spending. They should be maintained within business-use accounts, with close monitoring of the spending that is financed from these funds. These Reserves should only be spent following consultation with us; failure to discuss the use of these funds prior to spending decisions being made may jeopardize your Plan. Of course, any additional savings into these accounts will facilitate extra building steps in your investment, and so shorten the time taken for you to be able to live off the income from your capital.”
This last statement seems to be a contradiction because we were under the impression that we would be able to live off the income from our capital from the get-go! Wasn't that what Storm's viability process was all about?

 

[Frank Ainslie]

Totally agree Frank, totally agree.

Get in the ear of your local member as well, the new arrangements by Minister Shorten will guarantee a repeat of this down the track.



That is a great idea Solly, we can come to some arrangement to book the place out on a weekend and I am sure the Townsville mob would arrange billets for the out of towners.

Once the civil litigation is done, and a few, and it will only be a few unfortunately, have gone to the Creek to serve time, we can arrange something.

A few Stormers are so impoverished that they would barely afford a good night out, and like my mate, proud self sufficient people and may need a bit of encouragement to come.

The Ross Island Crew have quite disimilar characteristics to Storm Financial and the Banks, however they get punished more severely by visits to the Creek for minor transgressions, but the main difference is that they ARE HONEST, GOOD PEOPLE, and would host the Stormers royally.

Perhaps ASIC might be persuaded to shout the bar, it would be the only useful thing they will have done in this whole muppet saga.

gg

Hi GG,

Off now to enjoy Christmas.

I'll be in this if they take IOU's?

 

[SJG1974]

Hi Solly,

This is disgraceful!

Agree 100% Frank. I know of a guy who was caught defrauding investors in a failed movie, who became a financial adviser and was then caught misleading clients who then started up his own advice business and has now been banned for being an adviser for 5 years. He will find some other way to make a quick buck at the expense of others. No jail time, minimal financial penalties...absolutely no deterrent from offending again. There would be hundreds of people who have done similar.

ASIC have no teeth at all.

 

[ROE]

Bunyip when storm first collapsed, one of the first things I read in the media, somewhere, was that we were all a mob of greedy investors. I saw another financial advisor who told me that we had a good legal case, so I rang a legal group and the fellow on the other end of the phone said "you people crow in the good times and cry when you get burnt".

At that time I had no idea what he was talking about as I thought we were simply people seeking financial advice who had asked for a conservative financial plan. We told our advisor "low to no risk" and our paperwork supports this.

Obviously we made several mistakes, number one believing and trusting financial advisors and banks. I haven't seen the documentary "Piggy Banks" as we haven't been close enough to any screenings. I think that we are now seeing more understanding from those not involved than we ever saw three years ago. Hopefully that will continue as I would like to see something positive done to make it more difficult for a storm scenario to reoccur.

The government, financial and legal industry need to acknowledge where the true problems lie and not just brush it under the carpet so that it can happen again. We, the Stormies, have been far too badly burnt by this and we have two main options.

1. To lie down and die or
2. To fight for justice

I think you will find that most of us would rather die fighting for justice, after all we have nothing of any real monetary value left. We've all been backed into a corner and we will continue to fight. We need an honest and trustworthy financial system in this country and until we get one the general population needs to be aware that under our present system they can be fleeced by the very people we need to seek advice from.

As Frank has said, financial people don't have a sign on their doors saying "we're the good guys". We've even been told 'get over it and move on". My response to this is "why should we sit back and accept such criminal behavior". The other thing is, storm is not the first, or the last to do this to their clients.

I feel for the good guys in the financial world, they too will suffer the fallout from this.

I dont think this will ever happen, that the capitalism model you get the good and the bad that goes with it, no reform or law will stop the scam or shonky shops..

people just have to be more vigilant when it comes to their money and taking on advices.

 

[Solly]

"Family ready to settle in to former Cassimatis mansion

AN extended Townsville family with young children is set to enjoy the luxury that was once the domain of infamous Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis.

And in a twist, it is believed the buyer of the mansion on Townsville's Melton Hill is Amy Tomlinson."

More by Tony Raggatt @ townsvillebulletin.com.au

 

[Harleyquin]

There is every chance ROE that you're right and 'this may never happen'. However, what is very obvious is that the present system is grossly ineffective or the storm debacle would never have occurred.

Do we sit back and allow this level of criminality to continue to reoccur or do we look for a more effective solution - whatever that maybe.

I don't believe that the legal changes proposed by the powers that be are going to have any positive effect in stopping future collapses either, however you can't tell me that we can't all put our heads together to come up with something more positive.

I know the much used slogan 'it's human nature', doesn't mean that those of a criminal nature need to be tolerated or accepted by the rest of us.

Agree wholeheartedly that we all need to be more vigilant when it comes to our own money.

However I also believe that our ASIC and FPA approved financial planners; selling their suitably qualified financial advice to those who feel they need it and are prepared to pay for it; and the Australian Banking system who back these financial planners also need to be vigilant with their clients money. If they don't - they are simply common criminals and need to be treated as such.

What the Commonwealth Bank did to their Storm clients was criminal. Somebody, in fact several employees, of that bank, knew exactly what they were doing and their actions are highly questionable, to put it very lightly!

Criminals need to be punished not accepted irrespective of what perceived position they hold in our society. Let's not go backwards in this country, after all, we're supposed to be living in a democracy. Let's get seriously democratic and stand up for what is right. It's time for us all to say 'enough is enough'.