Fines so far have totalled £22.6m the second highest amount yet. It would be a record were it not for the distorting effect on the 2004 £24.8m record of the £17m fine against Shell.
FSA
FSA fines hit record with more to come
This website and sisters royaldutchshellplc.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website,
johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net,
are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.
Regulators stuck in a fine mess
The biggest fine ever imposed by the Financial Services Authority was £17 million. On Shell, sitting on $270 billion-worth (£146.8 billion) of oil, according to the last accounts.
Winterflood challenges FSA over market abuse fine
A £4m fine would be the fourth largest ever levied by the watchdog. The record was £17m against Shell for mis-stating its oil reserves.
FSA fines Winterflood £4m over market abuse
In August 2004, the authority fined Royal Dutch Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, a total of £17 million for market abuse and breaching listing rules after the oil group overstated the level of its oil reserves.
US watchdog wants London to tighten oil market rules
American regulators are heading for a direct confrontation with the Financial Services Authority (FSA) after trying to slap new trading restrictions on the London oil market without the approval of the British watchdog.
Is it right or fair the describe the Shell reserves scandal as a “Fraud”
Christopher Cox, the Chairman of the SEC is on record as describing the scandal as a fraud when he listed European frauds.
FSA joins western watchdogs in search for oil price rigging
Oil prices ended a volatile week almost $10 below their record $135 levels as the Financial Services Authority joined a worldwide investigation into the price manipulation of crude.
£17m fine against Royal Dutch Shell in 2004, the watchdog’s largest to date, for market abuse
It is dwarfed by the £17m fine against Royal Dutch Shell in 2004, the watchdog's largest to date, for market abuse.
Financial Times: Sir Philip Watts and the Markets Tribunal: “Beware of what you boast. When the Financial Services Authority fined Royal Dutch Shell £17m last summer for market abuse, the regulator pointedly referred to the “speedy resolution” of the case…”: Tuesday 26 July 2005 By Martin Dickson Published: July 26 2005 Beware of what you boast. When the Financial Services Authority fined Royal Dutch Shell £17m last summer for market abuse, the regulator pointedly referred to the “speedy resolution” of the case, which was held up as an example of its new and desirable emphasis on faster justice. In fact, the outcome was not ultra quick. Shell first publicly revealed it had mis-stated its reserves the previous January, and by the time the FSA announced its fine, the company was already facing a substantially larger penalty from the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US. Still, by the past standards of FSA investigations, this was relatively fast. But now its speediness has come back to haunt it, with yesterday’s appearance of Sir Philip Watts, Shell’s former chairman, before the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal. Sir Philip, who has also been under FSA investigation, claims the regulator treated him prejudicially. First, it failed to give him a copy of its decision notice criticising Shell, and the right to respond. Second, it published the notice. For although it did not name Sir Philip, he was clearly identified with running the company. The FSA, he argues, could have delayed its notice until its individual investigations had been completed, or kept its findings at a higher level of generality. The FSA replies that the fact Sir Philip was not singled out, and that all its criticisms were at the level of corporate personality, means he cannot have been prejudiced. The case highlights the tension between the FSA’s desire for speedy results, and the rights and differing interests of companies and the individuals employed by them. If the FSA loses, it could mean enforcement cases are more tortuous and take substantially longer. The regulator is fond of saying that “justice delayed is justice denied”. But, as Sir Philip would doubtless agree, that may not always be the case.
Financial Times: Sir Philip Watts and the Markets Tribunal
“Beware of what you boast. When the Financial Services Authority fined Royal Dutch Shell £17m last summer for market abuse, the regulator pointedly referred to the “speedy resolution” of the case…”
Tuesday 26 July 2005
By Martin Dickson
Published: July 26 2005
Beware of what you boast. When the Financial Services Authority fined Royal Dutch Shell £17m last summer for market abuse, the regulator pointedly referred to the “speedy resolution” of the case, which was held up as an example of its new and desirable emphasis on faster justice.
In fact, the outcome was not ultra quick. Shell first publicly revealed it had mis-stated its reserves the previous January, and by the time the FSA announced its fine, the company was already facing a substantially larger penalty from the Securities and Exchange Commission in the US.
Financial Times: Case of ex-Shell chief could make life complicated for FSA
Financial Times: Case of ex-Shell chief could make life complicated for FSA
Thursday 28 July 2005
By Barney Jopson
Published: July 28 2005
The Financial Services Authority and headstrong business executives do not mix. Following a clash with Sir David Prosser, chief executive of Legal & General, at a tribunal earlier this year, the FSA this week crossed swords in the same place with Sir Philip Watts, former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell.
L&G’s criticism of a mis-selling case against it triggered an overhaul of FSA enforcement procedures announced last week. Sir Philip’s action has the potential to prompt even more change at the regulator.
BLOOMBERG: Watts Accuses U.K.’s FSA of `Mischief’ in Shell Reserves Probe
BLOOMBERG: Watts Accuses U.K.’s FSA of `Mischief’ in Shell Reserves Probe
This website and sisters royaldutchshellplc.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website,
johndonovan.website, and shellnews.net,
are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment. “The regulator, which didn’t mention Watts’s name in the penalty notice, rejected the accusations and said it’s still probing Watts.”: “The watchdog’s imposed a record 17 million-pound ($30 million) fine on Shell last year amid investor lawsuits, the loss of the company’s top-tier credit rating and the departure of Watts and two other executives. Clearing his name may provide Watts with ammunition for a defense in any class-action suits against him.”
Posted Tuesday 26 July 2005
(Bloomberg) — Philip Watts, ousted as chairman of Royal Dutch Shell Plc last year, accused the U.K.’s Financial Services Authority of “mischief” for implicating him personally when it punished the company for overstating oil reserves.
Watts today stepped up a campaign to clear his name of wrongdoing by asking an independent tribunal to support his claim that the FSA “identified and prejudiced” him when it published findings of an inquiry into Shell and fined the company last July. The regulator, which didn’t mention Watts’s name in the penalty notice, rejected the accusations and said it’s still probing Watts.
Watts new? Hardly
Financial Times: Watts new? Hardly
“He was even still wearing the shell-shaped ring that had always seemed to be a token of his corporate loyalty. It turns out to have been his wedding ring.”
Tuesday 26 July 2005
By Clay Harris
Published: July 26 2005
Sir Philip Watts walked into the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal yesterday looking not a day older than when he disappeared from the scene in March 2004. He wore the same glasses, his hair was no greyer and no thinner than it had been. In fact, Watts looked healthier and less stressed than he ever did as Shell’s chairman.
The stiff, sometimes forced smile, with which he ends all his sentences was still there, and his need to break any silence with a joke had not diminished. He was even still wearing the shell-shaped ring that had always seemed to be a token of his corporate loyalty. It turns out to have been his wedding ring.
Former Shell boss challenges the FSA to launch proceedings
Financial Times: Former Shell boss challenges the FSA to launch proceedings
“Yesterday’s one-day hearing was Sir Philip’s first legal move since he was forced to resign from Shell in March 2004, following the company’s admission that it had incorrectly booked nearly 4bn barrels of oil and gas.”
Tuesday 26 July 2005
By Carola Hoyos and Barney Jopson
Published: July 26 2005
Sir Philip Watts, former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, yesterday challenged the Financial Services Authority to launch proceedings against him to determine his role in the Anglo-Dutch oil company’s reserves scandal.
Lawyers for Sir Philip told the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal, which hears appeals against the FSA: “The applicant’s principal concern is that he be provided with an opportunity to clear his name.
The Independent: Former Shell chairman accuses FSA of prejudice
The Independent (UK): Former Shell chairman accuses FSA of prejudice
“Representing the FSA, Anthony Grabiner QC dismissed Mr Pannick’s claims, insisting that Sir Philip was not identified or prejudiced by its announcement of the fine. ‘This is all nonsense,’ he said.”
Tuesday July 26, 2005
James Daley
Sir Philip Watts, the former chairman of Shell, accused the Financial Services Authority of mischievous behaviour yesterday, claiming that its handling of disciplinary proceedings against the oil giant last year had been prejudicial towards him.
Speaking on behalf of Sir Philip at a one-day hearing of the Financial Services & Markets Tribunal in London, David Pannick QC criticised the regulator for failing to give Sir Philip a right to reply before it fined Shell a record pounds 17m for overstating its oil reserves last summer.
The Guardian: Ex-Shell chief seeks to clear his name
The Guardian (UK): Ex-Shell chief seeks to clear his name
“…his legal team argue that the Financial Services Authority had damaged his reputation when it fined Shell a record £17m a year ago for “unprecedented misconduct”. The fine followed the admission by the Anglo-Dutch group that it had over reported its reserves by almost a quarter.”: “For the FSA, Lord Grabiner said that Sir Philip was using the tribunal to “take on the media” which used the Shell fine to identify him.”
Tuesday July 26, 2005
Jill Treanor
Sir Philip Watts yesterday began the process of trying to “clear his name” almost 18 months after resigning as chairman of oil group Shell.
In his first major public outing since his departure in March 2004, Sir Philip attended a City tribunal to hear his legal team argue that the Financial Services Authority had damaged his reputation when it fined Shell a record £17m a year ago for “unprecedented misconduct”.
The fine followed the admission by the Anglo-Dutch group that it had over reported its reserves by almost a quarter. Sir Philip is arguing that the FSA identified him – and prejudiced him – when fining Shell, even though he was not named personally when the so-called final notice against Shell was issued.
FSA dismiss as ‘nonsense’ an appeal by Sir Philip Watts
THE LONDON TIMES: Need to know: “The Financial Services Authority has dismissed as “nonsense” an appeal before the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal by Sir Philip Watts, the former Royal Dutch Shell boss, that the regulator’s report into Shell’s reserves scandal unfairly damaged his reputation.”
Tuesday 26 July 2005
Natural Resources
Up 0.96%
The Financial Services Authority has dismissed as “nonsense” an appeal before the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal by Sir Philip Watts, the former Royal Dutch Shell boss, that the regulator’s report into Shell’s reserves scandal unfairly damaged his reputation.
Afren, the newly-listed oil and gas company, has appointed Charles Jamieson as nonexecutive chairman. Mr Jamieson was the long-serving chief executive of Premier Oil.
BHP Billiton, the Anglo-Australian miner, will invest $4.3 million (£2.5 million) to become the biggest external shareholder in European Nickel, the AIM-listed company, with an 8.9 per cent stake.
Ex-Shell chief to challenge FSA ruling
Financial Times: Ex-Shell chief to challenge FSA ruling
“Sir Philip Watts, former chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, is due to challenge the Financial Services Authority at the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal today.”: “He claimed he had been “identified and prejudiced” when the regulator fined Shell £17m in August 2004 for misleading the market by overstating its oil and gas reserves between 1998 and 2003.”
Monday 25 July 2005
By Kate Burgess
Published: July 25 2005
Sir Philip Watts, former chairman of Royal Dutch/Shell, is due to challenge the Financial Services Authority at the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal today.
Sir Philip, who was forced to resign from Shell in March 2004, first launched his appeal against the FSA in the autumn. He claimed he had been “identified and prejudiced” when the regulator fined Shell £17m in August 2004 for misleading the market by overstating its oil and gas reserves between 1998 and 2003.
Why has Ex-Shell Boss Watts brought proceedings against the FSA?
ShellNews.net: Why has Ex-Shell Boss Watts brought proceedings against the FSA who did not name him in their Shell reserves scandal report but not against publishers and broadcasters who have named him in connection with the debacle?
Tuesday 26 July 2005
Numerous media reports have categorically named and blamed Sir Philip Watts for the Shell reserves debacle which destroyed Shell’s reputation. Yet Sir Philip has not brought proceedings against any of them. So why is he embroiled in proceedings against the Financial Services Authority who did not name and blame him in their report?
To take an example of one TV broadcast, we have provided extracts below from a BBC TV programme about the scandal – “The Money Programme”, aired on 15 July 2004.
U.K. FSA Asks for Ruling on Ex-Shell Boss’s Challenge
BLOOMBERG: U.K. FSA Asks for Ruling on Ex-Shell Boss’s Challenge
“Class-Action Ammunition: While Watts wasn’t identified by name in the FSA’s notice, it may provide ammunition in the class-action suits filed against him.”: “Watts, 59, asked for the tribunal to challenge the notice the FSA published when Shell agreed to pay fines of $150 million in Britain and the U.S.
Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) — The U.K.’s financial regulator will ask a tribunal to decide whether former Royal Dutch/Shell Group chairman Philip Watts was “identified and prejudiced” by the regulator’s penalty against Shell for overstating oil reserves.
“We are confident that he was not and that the tribunal will agree with us,” the Financial Services Authority said in an e- mailed statement. “This would mean that the tribunal will have no jurisdiction to consider the other matters which Sir Philip has referred to the tribunal.”
FSA fights shy of interventionism
Financial Times: FSA fights shy of interventionism
“The FSA was criticised by some commentators for its decision to fine Shell £17m for misreporting reserves. This penalised shareholders who had already seen the value of their holdings suffer.”: “However, it does seem reasonable to deliver a message to shareholders that they have the responsibility to ensure senior [managers] manage their company well and they should share in the consequences of management not behaving well.”
By Deborah Hargreaves
Published: September 13 2004
The Financial Services Authority is not naturally an interventionist regulator and should look wherever possible for market-based solutions, according to Hector Sants, managing director of wholesale and institutional markets.
Part of the regulator’s approach to monitoring financial markets is to encourage operators to blow the whistle on malpractice. “We have the assumption that the majority of people in the marketplace are decent people seeking to do the right thing,” he said in an interview with the FT.
UK Market Regulator Earns Stripes With Shell Fine
The Wall Street Journal: UK Market Regulator Earns Stripes With Shell Fine
“”The Shell case, by raising the stakes so dramatically for the FSA, is kind of another way of rattling the handcuffs.”
By JACK GRONE
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
July 30, 2004 11:07 a.m.
Posted 31 July 04
LONDON — The U.K.’s Financial Services Authority has hit the big time.
By slapping Royal Dutch/Shell Group (RD, SC) with a GBP17 million fine Thursday over the company’s misreporting of its oil and gas reserves earlier this year, the FSA did little damage to the oil giant’s bottom line.
But the penalty, announced alongside a bigger fine that Shell will pay to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, should send a clear warning to the broader market, observers said.
Shell agrees to pay fines of £83m
The Times: Shell agrees to pay fines of £83m
“continuing criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice.”: “Both Euronext and AFM, the Dutch securities institute, are also investigating Shell”
By Carl Mortished, International Business Editor
July 30, 2004
SHELL will pay fines totalling £83 million to UK and US stock market regulators as a penalty for offences of market abuse and violation of securities laws relating to its misreporting of oil and gas reserves.
The payments, revealed yesterday by the oil company in a statement that did not concede liability, include £17 million to the Financial Services Authority, the largest fine ever imposed by the UK regulator, and a $120 million (£66 million) civil penalty to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Scotsman: Shell Fined £65M after Reserves Crisis
The Scotsman: Shell Fined £65M after Reserves Crisis
“inquiry which found that Shell violated reporting, record-keeping and anti-trust rules.”
By David Winning, City Staff, PA News
Thu 29 Jul 2004 8:07am (UK)
Oil giant Shell said today it had been hit with a 120 million US dollar (£65.7 million) fine following its reserves crisis earlier this year.
The penalty was imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US after an inquiry which found that Shell violated reporting, record-keeping and anti-trust rules.
The Anglo-Dutch group rocked the market in January by announcing that its oil and gas stocks were 20% lower than previously thought. It subsequently downgraded its reserves a further three times.
Royal Dutch Shell conspired directly with Hitler, financed the Nazi Party, was anti-Semitic and sold out its own Dutch Jewish employees to the Nazis. Shell had a close relationship with the Nazis during and after the reign of Sir Henri Deterding, an ardent Nazi, and the founder and decades long leader of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. His burial ceremony, which had all the trappings of a state funeral, was held at his private estate in Mecklenburg, Germany. The spectacle (photographs below) included a funeral procession led by a horse drawn funeral hearse with senior Nazis officials and senior Royal Dutch Shell directors in attendance, Nazi salutes at the graveside, swastika banners on display and wreaths and personal tributes from Adolf Hitler and Reichsmarschall, Hermann Goring. Deterding was an honored associate and supporter of Hitler and a personal friend of Goring.
Deterding was the guest of Hitler during a four day summit meeting at Berchtesgaden. Sir Henri and Hitler both had ambitions on Russian oil fields. Only an honored personal guest would be rewarded with a private four day meeting at Hitler’s mountain top retreat.
IN JULY 2007, MR BILL CAMPBELL (ABOVE, A RETIRED GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL SENT AN EMAIL TO EVERY UK MP AND MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS: 
MORE DETAILS:
A head-cut image of Alfred Donovan (now deceased) appears courtesy of The Wall Street Journal.
