orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
Hedging Democracy: the short game.
May 3, 2019
Were the Leave campaign’s proven lies told not purely to win the referendum but – arguably – for 300 hedge funds to make significant financial gains from the result?
With widespread indignation surrounding the way in which the referendum outcome was secured mounting, a vast tract of the British people are asking why the referendum has not been annulled.
It is clear, following the Electoral Commission findings – beyond reasonable doubt – that the Leave victory was procured by corrupt and illegal practices, which, ordinarily, would render the result void and a rerun organised.
To date, knowledge of those unlawful practices and the lies disseminated on an industrial scaleduring the campaign, have failed to restore the democratic process or uphold the rule of law. As such, divisions created by the referendum are set to become entrenched and endure.
We have witnessed the lies told with impunity by politicians and activists during the 2016 campaign going largely ignored. The potential for malfeasance or Misconduct in Public Office aside, ordinarily such lies are not actionable in our courts.
However, if someone lies for financial gain during an election or referendum campaign, that can potentially amount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. In particular, fraud by false representation (section 2) and fraud by abuse of position (section 4).
In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland, alerted hedge fund managers to the prospective use of referendum campaigns as mechanisms for financial gain.
Controversy erupted when it materialised that financial backing of anti-EU campaigners came from hedge fund managers while some hedge funds had taken out specific bets on the insolvency of the country if the Irish people returned another no vote. A similar tactic was adopted by hedge funders during the 2016 referendum who made billions of pounds adopting the ‘short position’ on the outcome.
Some hedge fund companies were ardent for the UK to break ties with the EU following anger at the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive(2011/61/EU), which was designed to regulate hedge funds for the first time in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Historically, they had traded without extensive regulations and lacked transparency. Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services at the time, introduced the rules in order to re-introduce financial stability back into financial markets and create transparency so as to avoid another major financial crisis.
Not surprisingly, numerous hedge funders were opposed to those provisions. This article considers the idea that such companies colluded during the 2016 EU Referendum to both rid themselves of those regulations by leaving the trade block and make substantial financial gains in the process.
Rest of the article here
May 3, 2019
Were the Leave campaign’s proven lies told not purely to win the referendum but – arguably – for 300 hedge funds to make significant financial gains from the result?
With widespread indignation surrounding the way in which the referendum outcome was secured mounting, a vast tract of the British people are asking why the referendum has not been annulled.
It is clear, following the Electoral Commission findings – beyond reasonable doubt – that the Leave victory was procured by corrupt and illegal practices, which, ordinarily, would render the result void and a rerun organised.
To date, knowledge of those unlawful practices and the lies disseminated on an industrial scaleduring the campaign, have failed to restore the democratic process or uphold the rule of law. As such, divisions created by the referendum are set to become entrenched and endure.
We have witnessed the lies told with impunity by politicians and activists during the 2016 campaign going largely ignored. The potential for malfeasance or Misconduct in Public Office aside, ordinarily such lies are not actionable in our courts.
However, if someone lies for financial gain during an election or referendum campaign, that can potentially amount to fraud under the Fraud Act 2006. In particular, fraud by false representation (section 2) and fraud by abuse of position (section 4).
In 2009, the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland, alerted hedge fund managers to the prospective use of referendum campaigns as mechanisms for financial gain.
Controversy erupted when it materialised that financial backing of anti-EU campaigners came from hedge fund managers while some hedge funds had taken out specific bets on the insolvency of the country if the Irish people returned another no vote. A similar tactic was adopted by hedge funders during the 2016 referendum who made billions of pounds adopting the ‘short position’ on the outcome.
Some hedge fund companies were ardent for the UK to break ties with the EU following anger at the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive(2011/61/EU), which was designed to regulate hedge funds for the first time in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
Historically, they had traded without extensive regulations and lacked transparency. Michel Barnier, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services at the time, introduced the rules in order to re-introduce financial stability back into financial markets and create transparency so as to avoid another major financial crisis.
Not surprisingly, numerous hedge funders were opposed to those provisions. This article considers the idea that such companies colluded during the 2016 EU Referendum to both rid themselves of those regulations by leaving the trade block and make substantial financial gains in the process.
Rest of the article here
