Foreign AssignmentForeign AssignmentForeign AssignmentIn the case of âforeign assignmentâ, his behavior was unacceptable. The bank has certain obligations that it should enforce to protect from this. Also there is an international moral code, The International Federation of Accountants that must be followed to prevent this situation.
As far as obligations, the bank has to make sure that their employees are not harmed. They need to follow the basic principles of the International Federation of Accountants which are integrity, objectivity, professional competence, and due care. Integrity states that a professional should be âstraight forward and honestâ at all times while they are in another country. In this case they were not being honest with the Latin American associates of the bank, or Ms. Strong. If they were to find out that he lied they would be at risk and most likely lose the deal. The other basic principle that applies here is objectivity which mentions that they âshould not allow bias, conflict of interest or undue influence of others to override professional or business judgmentsâ.
The banks and their associates were working with one another, and the result was that a large number of accounts that were used with HSBC were left undeliverable. Therefore, a financial institution had to rely on the banks to help them comply with their obligations. We can’t rule this out, but we feel the banks were failing their customers and that they would have no financial stability if they hadn’t known whether an HSBC account was to be used with them, and which accounts it was.
While these problems, for Bank of America was a financial failure, it also led to what has been called the «Wall Street crashâĄâĄ. As the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said in his first testimony to Congress in October 2010:
”We would have to tell you, if you are in this area, about how to respond to this type of situation and that is not something that we have conducted, we will have the support of the federal government and the State banking regulators to go to great lengths to deal with this issue. And I think with the banking regulatory and bank activity being such a problem for our banks and for the financial system, there is no place I can go if I don’t want the Department of Justice in.”[1]
Despite reports that U.S. banks were already working with an offshore financial institution, the banks and regulators have refused to release these statements, and even refused to address questions about whether their activities had led to Wall Street’s bailout, but were already trying to mitigate the consequences of their actions:
According to HSBC’s press release issued on December 2, 2009, the banks did not do any “substantive work to avoid the risk of having their accounts frozen or affected by government action âĄâĄ to protect any customers.”[2]
According to the release, the banks “did nothing to ensure the financial system would behave like its own financial system, with the potential for an immediate recession, until they were given the opportunity to provide the necessary services.”[3]
At the risk of appearing naive, that means the banks would have to offer their customers a much higher standard, or get caught out. In the end, all bets are off. HSBC’s case, and the banking laws that follow it for U.S. jurisdictions, would be much more difficult to prove without government action, and it may already have come to pass that U.S. banks are not using such institutions at all.
The banks and their associates were working with one another, and the result was that a large number of accounts that were used with HSBC were left undeliverable. Therefore, a financial institution had to rely on the banks to help them comply with their obligations. We can’t rule this out, but we feel the banks were failing their customers and that they would have no financial stability if they hadn’t known whether an HSBC account was to be used with them, and which accounts it was.
While these problems, for Bank of America was a financial failure, it also led to what has been called the «Wall Street crashâĄâĄ. As the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission said in his first testimony to Congress in October 2010:
”We would have to tell you, if you are in this area, about how to respond to this type of situation and that is not something that we have conducted, we will have the support of the federal government and the State banking regulators to go to great lengths to deal with this issue. And I think with the banking regulatory and bank activity being such a problem for our banks and for the financial system, there is no place I can go if I don’t want the Department of Justice in.”[1]
Despite reports that U.S. banks were already working with an offshore financial institution, the banks and regulators have refused to release these statements, and even refused to address questions about whether their activities had led to Wall Street’s bailout, but were already trying to mitigate the consequences of their actions:
According to HSBC’s press release issued on December 2, 2009, the banks did not do any “substantive work to avoid the risk of having their accounts frozen or affected by government action âĄâĄ to protect any customers.”[2]
According to the release, the banks “did nothing to ensure the financial system would behave like its own financial system, with the potential for an immediate recession, until they were given the opportunity to provide the necessary services.”[3]
At the risk of appearing naive, that means the banks would have to offer their customers a much higher standard, or get caught out. In the end, all bets are off. HSBC’s case, and the banking laws that follow it for U.S. jurisdictions, would be much more difficult to prove without government action, and it may already have come to pass that U.S. banks are not using such institutions at all.
It seems that the influences of the clients down in Mexico City are doing more damage than perhaps noticeable. Ms. Strong is a good employee and we are letting her take a back seat to what is going on down there. She was sent there because she was a good employee, and now her post seems to be a punishment for her, it is no wonder that she is becoming dishearten and questioning the businessâ practice and policies. Perhaps Mr. Vitam would understand more if he were posted somewhere women had more control than men, and he was becoming the person who was attacked and embarrassed by jokes (International Federation of Accountantsâ Ethics Committee, 2004).
The bank is making a horrible decision by allowing management to follow the standard of its host country. While normally the popular saying, âWhile in Romans, do as Romans doâ is a standard and acceptable practice in most senses, this particular case does not make that statement practical. We are alienating our own employees to satisfy the managementâs needs to do more business. While we must make money and keep the business moving, we must also listen to our employees and not make them feel like that are parts of the trouble. As bankers we must still adhere to the ethical code set forth by the International Federation of Accountants.
Perhaps the best way to resolve this situation is to intervene and let Ms. Strong know that you will assist her and that you will do what ever it is that you can to change the situation in Mexico City to keep the integrity of the bank and Ms. Strong. You can also try to change company policies assure that something like this does not ever happen again. Since you are working with other international countries you need to make sure that your policies adhere to the International Federation of Accountants.
Mr. Vitam should also be called into a conference which will