HC Deb 17 September 1940 vol 365 cc113-5
54. Mr. Glenvil Hall

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his atten- tion has been called to the fact that, in the course of a recent case against Mr. Leon Pandeli Argenti, the learned magistrate called attention to the unusual course pursued by the Bank of England in relation to the defendant; and whether the Bank of England acted in this instance with the full approval of the Treasury?

56 and 57. Mr. Ellis Smith

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) why the Bank of England allowed the account of Leon Pandeli Argenti to be released after having been blocked; to what extent it was drawn on, and currency sent abroad; who was responsible for the procedure; and what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible for this matter, and to prevent a repetition of transactions of the kind involved:

(2) whether he is satisfied with the Bank of England machinery and the way it functions, in view of the recent foreign currency prosecution; and whether he will have a White Paper issued showing the names and amounts involved of transactions of this kind through the Bank of England since 1st August, 1939?

Sir K. Wood

Mr. Argenti had, at the beginning of 1939, taken the steps necessary to sever his connection with his London firm, the resignation taking effect on 31st August, 1939, and had arranged to set up in business in Belgium and to purchase a part interest in a factory there. In connection with the purchase of the factory, he applied for permission, in September, 1939, to retain and sell between £2,000 and £2,500 in Belgian securities, which was granted under the regulations then in force. Mr. Argenti took up his residence in Belgium, in accordance with the intention he had expressed before the war, without having any intention to return to this country. He was, therefore, allowed to operate upon his sterling balances, since, as hon. Members are aware, sterling balances of foreign residents are not blocked. In fact, he was treated in accordance with the ordinary arrangements in force at the time. He returned to this country after the German invasion of Belgium. None of the transactions referred to have any connection with the offence for which he was prosecuted, and I venture to doubt whether the learned magistrate was fully seized of the facts relating to them. I may add that, under a regulation made last July, it is not now possible for any person who has been in this country at any time since the beginning of the war to claim to exercise the privileges of a non-resident.

Mr. Hall

Do I understand that this man was wrongly convicted?

Sir K. Wood

No, Sir; I was careful to point out that none of these transactions has any connection with the offence for which he was prosecuted.

Mr. Hall

My Question refers to the offence for which he was prosecuted, and I would like an answer to it.

Sir K. Wood

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a further Question.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Do I understand that the Chancellor answered Question 57, and, if so, can he say why he has not replied to the request that a White Paper should be issued showing the amounts and names involved?

Sir K. Wood

I do not see any reason to do that. I think that my hon. Friend's suggestion was based on a misconception of this case.

Forward to