LIBOR 'arrests imminent' - no doubt just a few traders...
Discussion
superlightr said:
9mm said:
I think most of the train robbers got 25-30 years. I'll be interested to read who is in the dock next but I'd like to see someone from compliance.
Id like to see Tony Blair in the dock - I'm happy to admit I was wrong. I can swallow my pride.
The case quoted by TB was more relevant because it was more recent.
However, as well all know, each and every case stands on its own merits and cross comparing cases that are concerning widely different kinds of offences is a bit spurious, to my mind.
The case quoted by TB was more relevant because it was more recent.
However, as well all know, each and every case stands on its own merits and cross comparing cases that are concerning widely different kinds of offences is a bit spurious, to my mind.
Derek Smith said:
BlackLabel said:
Lengthy sentences for financial fraud is actually a deterrent
I'm unaware of any research that suggests harsh sentencing deters anyone for any offence. Whilst research suggests various circumstance that put people off, one which is acknowledged by most researchers as a, if not the, major deterrent is the likelihood of being found guilty.A draconian sentence is not high in the list, illogical though it seems.
The reasons people offend is a complex subject and one which consensus is unlikely to be arrived at any time soon. There are various reason that are popular> peer pressure, others getting away with it, supervision slack/non-existent and even just excitement.
There were police officer who risked their freedom, their financial security and more for a week's wages.
The idea that people balance risks carefully is not supported by the research. They just do it 'cause they think they will get away with it.
I accept that most crimes are not influenced by length of sentence, but for this type of fraud, I find it hard to believe that highly educated, professional, numerate, risk-managing and calculating people have not thought through the consequences as well as the likelihood of getting caught.
As an extreme example, whilst a death sentence probably has no impact on murder rates, I'd bet City financial fraud would dry up if it carried a mandatory death penalty.
oyster said:
I'd bet City financial fraud would dry up if it carried a mandatory death penalty.
It doesn't deter people from drug-smuggling (and who earn far less in rewards) so why would it deter financial crime? It's not a black-or-white issue. Like the rogue trader at UBS - people don't mean to f8ck up they just do, more to do with circmstances than individual thought processes.Eric Mc said:
I'm happy to admit I was wrong. I can swallow my pride.
The case quoted by TB was more relevant because it was more recent.
However, as well all know, each and every case stands on its own merits and cross comparing cases that are concerning widely different kinds of offences is a bit spurious, to my mind.
You only need to look at the sentencing guidelines to see nearly all rapes will be below 14 years in their sentence. Specific examples aren't needed: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...The case quoted by TB was more relevant because it was more recent.
However, as well all know, each and every case stands on its own merits and cross comparing cases that are concerning widely different kinds of offences is a bit spurious, to my mind.
You did write this that I interpreted as more general rape vs fraud rather than rape vs this specific fraud. You're not wrong on a general basis:
Eric Mc said:
I would also like to see some substantiation that rape cases produce lower sentences than fraud cases, in UK courts.
oyster said:
I accept that most crimes are not influenced by length of sentence, but for this type of fraud, I find it hard to believe that highly educated, professional, numerate, risk-managing and calculating people have not thought through the consequences as well as the likelihood of getting caught.
Apologies for butchering your post...The answer to the above being that there may have been an assumption of invulnerability.
Perhaps 'managers' did not provide explicit guidance to the consequences of these actions.
One presumes that there would have been some form of staff 'manual' to prescribe the actions to be taken re LIBOR (and perhaps this may be required under Sarbox)
Although, none are so blind as those who will not see.
fido said:
It doesn't deter people from drug-smuggling (and who earn far less in rewards) so why would it deter financial crime? It's not a black-or-white issue. Like the rogue trader at UBS - people don't mean to f8ck up they just do, more to do with circmstances than individual thought processes.
Perhaps some financial organisations are employing the wrong kind of people? If this kind of behaviour is going on why not try and employ people who are more risk adverse and have more empathy. Or just keep steaming ahead, doing the same thing with the same types of people, hoping that a bit more regulation might sort it out?
Eric Mc said:
Certainly the sector has gone for more "aggressive" types than maybe it did in past decades.
If you're getting people that keep breaking the law or acting in a way which is getting the employer in trouble, you'd think they would look for other types of people? Having "aggressive types" might be great for certain parts of a business but then you'd want to isolate these people and their departments to ensure any wrongdoing won't spread into other parts of the business. If your business is all interlinked i'm not sure why you'd want people with certainly personality types or traits working for you. Unless the people doing the employing are all the same of course.
Sounds like the problem is in the culture and the people attracted to it, rather than the (lack of) regulation.
el stovey said:
Perhaps some financial organisations are employing the wrong kind of people? If this kind of behaviour is going on why not try and employ people who are more risk adverse and have more empathy.
Well I don't think you can draw a line neatly between 'good' and 'bad' people. Given a set of circumstances, people will do what people do, whatever profession they happen to be in. I think it's incredibly naïve to expect people to do the right thing all the time. That's why then need to change procedures for LIBOR submission.Imagine your job was to enter a LIBOR figure into a spread-sheet each day with no checks or procedure. And this was then combined with 15 other numbers from the other banks. Your manager doesn't care, compliance don't care, no one really cares as it's always been like. You can pick from a choice of figures a couple of basis points apart. The fact that they were using messaging systems to communicate their desires shows how accepted this practise was. It probably didn't matter 20 years ago it was just a figure used between banks.
fido said:
Imagine your job was to enter a LIBOR figure into a spread-sheet each day with no checks or procedure. And this was then combined with 15 other numbers from the other banks. Your manager doesn't care, compliance don't care, no one really cares as it's always been like. You can pick from a choice of figures a couple of basis points apart. The fact that they were using messaging systems to communicate their desires shows how accepted this practise was. It probably didn't matter 20 years ago it was just a figure used between banks.
I don't think the guy got 14 years for being careless about how he filled in a spreadsheet. Who's being naive now?Eric Mc said:
You can certainly draw a line between good and bad deeds.
You can certainly draw a line between lawful and unlawful deeds.
And, if you have even a smidgin of morals, you can draw a line between ethical and unethical deeds.
Yes, I agree with this. I don't understand it when the city boy apologists come on here saying its all the regulator's fault i.e. its perfectly ok to be a thief, indeed all crime must be the police's fault.You can certainly draw a line between lawful and unlawful deeds.
And, if you have even a smidgin of morals, you can draw a line between ethical and unethical deeds.
I do appreciate they slipped into very bad habits over a period of time and may wish to collectively support each other because, truth be told, there may be few clear consciences among them, but grown people can tell when they are doing stuff which is wrong/illegal.
None so blind as those who are in denial, I guess.
oyster said:
Does that research include large scale frauds by professionals? People who spend their working hours calculating risk and reward, usually legally. Why would they not balance risk and reward for illegal activities?
I accept that most crimes are not influenced by length of sentence, but for this type of fraud, I find it hard to believe that highly educated, professional, numerate, risk-managing and calculating people have not thought through the consequences as well as the likelihood of getting caught.
As an extreme example, whilst a death sentence probably has no impact on murder rates, I'd bet City financial fraud would dry up if it carried a mandatory death penalty.
I've no idea if they did break down the figures under professional, highly educated, etc, but the figures I was going by are overall. Most seem to accept the conclusion that being found guilty is the biggest deterrent. I accept that most crimes are not influenced by length of sentence, but for this type of fraud, I find it hard to believe that highly educated, professional, numerate, risk-managing and calculating people have not thought through the consequences as well as the likelihood of getting caught.
As an extreme example, whilst a death sentence probably has no impact on murder rates, I'd bet City financial fraud would dry up if it carried a mandatory death penalty.
As to highly educated, professional types some do have a certain arrogance. I was involved in the initial enquiry into massive frauds at a local authority and their lack of care in covering their tracks was remarkable. Even your local car thief would have done more. The replies to questions lacked thought.
I don't think that greed and careful calculation go together.
Would you think that a person would be less likely to commit an offence for, say £10 than £1,000,000? It's an interesting point. I've known an otherwise dead straight officer lift a Mars Bar from the display of a shop that had been broken into. When challenged he defended his actions by suggesting it was 'only' a Mars Bar. Yet if caught he'd have lost his job.
I don't think logic comes into decisions with regards criminality. Peer pressure, now there's something that generates criminal behaviour. A considerable number of officers in the City police in my early days in the job were bent, taking bribes on a weekly basis. The crimes included a murder. Nowadays, there's no chance of such a high proportion going bent. it's not about the penalty so much as it just not being acceptable.
I know nothing about this bloke but he has suggested that 'everyone was at it', as if this explained it. But it would be consistent with the research.
If there's responsibility and no supervision, then there is crime.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff