Quantum mechanics and HSBC fraud


Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (1927), states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. As I understand it, it means the mere act of observing changes a particle’s state.

There is a very similar situation I have encountered in investigating the huge fraud by HSBC(HFC). This week I had a telephone conference with the Solicitors Regulation Authority from which it is clear that the 2 firms of solicitors involved, Weightmans and Restons, claim to have credited the illegal “collection charge” back to accounts where there is still a balance outstanding. This may be the case, but to my knowledge no debtors have ever received notification that that had been done (and in some cases the credit was as much as £5,000) and it has only become apparent when the debtor has recently asked for a statement of account. In some cases the “credit” has appeared after the debtor had been told that no refund is due and after the account was referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service. [It’s worth noting that the FOS don’t allow banks to offset any PPI premiums against an outstanding balance, the banks have to make a cash repayment. But not in these cases, they allow HSBC to offset the balance. The CEO of the FOS then left for a job at HSBC.]

This situation has lead me to believe that the bank/solicitors were engaging in false accounting by creating retrospective credits when the accounts are “observed”. Certainly there is no way of finding out from the banks statements because they do not show any charges which are claimed by the solicitors and therefore do not accurately reflect what the balance outstanding is (the bank and solicitors’ statements are always different) . The balance certainly seems to be a moveable feast depending on the observation of the account. I may be wrong, and all of the charges may have been credited back, although I think it is unlikely that a bank would lose money in that way unless it was being observed. It would still not absolve the bank of liability in respect of accounts where the balance has been repaid in full. Because their accounting is so unreliable the only way to get to the truth, as I have pointed out to both the SRA and the FCA is to examine invoices from the solicitors to the bank, and determine whether the costs have been paid by the debtor (pro forma), or the bank.

We will never know, and the process is analogous to this graphic, where it is impossible to see all the black dots at one time: