The Gazette 1991

193 / 462

g a z e t t e april 1991
In
this
Issue
Viewpoint 175
From the President 187
News from Irish Solicitors
Bar Association (London) 1 91
Lawbrief 195
Changes in the basis of income
tax assessment under the
Finance Act, 1990 199
Minutes of Half Yearly
Meeting 203
Address by President of the
Law Society to Annual
Conference 204
Book Review 206
Younger Members News 207
Professional Information 209
Executive Editor:
Mary Gaynor
Committee:
Eamonn G. Hall, Chairman
Michael V. O'Mahony, Vice-Chairman
John F. Buckley
Patrick McMahon
Advertising:
Seán Ó hOisín. Telephone: 305236
Fax: 307860
Printing:
Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford.
The views expressed in this publication,
save where otherwise indicated, are the
views of the contributors and not
necessarily the views of the Council of
the Society.
The appearance of an advertisement in
this publication does not necessarily
indicate approval by the Society for the
product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
Tel.: 710711. Telex: 31219. Fax: 710704
GAZETT INCORPORATED
LAW SOCIET Y
OF IRELAND
Vol. 85 No. 10 June 1991
Viewpoint
Public disquiet is clearly growing
with the realization that there is no
comprehensive protection for
monies placed with investment
agencies. There can of course be
no guarantee against unwise
investments but there seems to be
increasing evidence of non-
i nves tment or at least non-
i nves tment in the promised
securities. The Law Society has
long provided a Compensation
Fund to protect clients against
defalcations by solicitors. The two
major associations of auctioneers
have in recent years also es-
tablished compensation funds in
addition to the Statutory Bonding
Scheme. (In passing it is surprising
to note that not even in the wake
of the Russell Murphy debacle have
the accountants bodies established
such funds.)
Stock Brokers too protect their
clients by means of the Stock
Exchange Fund. Insurance Brokers
are subject to the recently in-
t r oduced con t r o ls and have
bonding schemes in operation.
Bodies which take deposits from
the public have long been subject
to the Central Bank. The travel
industry too is subject to bonding
requirements.
Perhaps it is the very diversity of
these schemes or s t a t u t o ry
controls which provides the key to
the problem. The absence of any
satisfactory controls appears to
stem from a familiar situation in our
governmental arrangements. The
jurisdictional functions of depart-
ments are tightly drawn. Matters
that cross these boundaries, such
as the law relating to children, or
worse still fall outside of them may
not be subject to satisfactory
supervision.
Given that travel agents and tour
operators where the amounts
involved, if not the dreams they sell,
are relatively modest are so strictly
controlled, it seems strange that
any persons can set themselves up
as investment brokers, as long as
they do not sell insurance, or
property, without any restrictions,
qua l i f i ca t i ons or supervision.
Perhaps there is a lurking view
that some of the customers of
dubious investment agencies have
been investing " hot money" and
are not deserving of great
protection. Even if this were true
it seems that many people have
also entrusted their legitimately
earned savings to such agencies.
They are entitled to expect that
the State will ensure that strict
standards of fiscal control and
probity are imposed on those who
are permitted to advertise their
investment services. If there are
those that fall outside the existing
protection schemes or controls the
sooner the net is widened to
include them the better, without
waiting for the proposed EC Draft
Directive on Capital Adequacy to
weave its tortuous way into
legislation.
A statutory licensing system
with adequate bonding should be
imposed on all those not already
covered by adequate schemes who
solicit or receive f unds for
investment from the public.
•
175