City traders have rate-rigging convictions quashed
Discussion
scenario8 said:
Another one that s dragged on for so long and wrecked lives. A pitiful saga.
But bankers so I inagine many will shrug and swiftly move on.
Cleared of criminality but the trial helped bury Libor and with it, London's reputation.But bankers so I inagine many will shrug and swiftly move on.
The chat logs that were shared in this period (the ones that the FT published at the time) for and part of the evidence against this group of people were something else.
These guys were scapgoats but it was (and probably still is) a very murky world and those chat logs were the most damaging thing to be released. The fact that this was actually happening, is what drove public opinion, not the actual verdicts of guilt.
One of the write ups from 2015, from the FT is here https://www.ft.com/content/c56b2f72-0465-11e5-95ad...
I'm curious how (or why) the appeals court turned down any chance of appeal down 5 times, before eventually getting to the supreme court.
It seems (from the article) it was the judge's directions to the jury that made it unsafe.
Will this be brought up in theseJudges'next appraisals?
Its a complete s
t show to be honest, and doesn't reflect well on the judiciary at all (including cps and sfo which i know is technically the executive not judiciary)
It seems (from the article) it was the judge's directions to the jury that made it unsafe.
Will this be brought up in theseJudges'next appraisals?
Its a complete s
t show to be honest, and doesn't reflect well on the judiciary at all (including cps and sfo which i know is technically the executive not judiciary)What is worse is that the BoE and other central banks were (likely, for the lawyers!) doing the same thing to a much larger degree, to essentially keep their countries solvent during the crisis. Those officials have never been investigated, and there has been no accountability for what they were doing.
The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
Condi said:
What is worse is that the BoE and other central banks were (likely, for the lawyers!) doing the same thing to a much larger degree, to essentially keep their countries solvent during the crisis. Those officials have never been investigated, and there has been no accountability for what they were doing.
The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
+1The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
It took some time, but hopefully these guys can move on with their life.
The whole thing was a complete st show from start to finish. Root of the problem is that the BBA never came up with a properly rigorous definition of how LIBOR should be calculated. Get some banks to tell you the rates they think they can lend and borrow money as of 11am, ignore the highest and lowest rates, simple average of the others; bingo. That creates a perfectly adequate reference rate in the normal course of business. The fact that you could choose a slightly different method and come up with a rate that's a few basis points different on any given day and the fact that those few basis points might change settlement amounts by a few million quid doesn't matter a jot. There's no right or wrong with this stuff. It's just a definition and as long as everyone understands it, it's fair.
But the problem is what's supposed to happen when the market is badly stressed? LIBOR was supposed to represent where a highly credit worthy bank could borrow money. What happens if you work for a bank that people, quite possibly completely irrationally, suddenly decide is not credit worthy? Should you quote the borrowing rate you can actually obtain in the market or the one you think you ought to be able to obtain, or the rate you think a creditworthy bank can currently obtain? Should you refuse to offer a rate on the basis that the market is currently fked and you genuinely have no idea at what rate you or anyone else could borrow money? Tumbleweed...
What was clearly complete bullst was to offer to quote a bit high or low to try to favour your colleagues' positions. That was incredibly dumb, because the impact would be so close to zero as to make no difference. It was just silly bravado. But it was also a blatant attempt to manipulate the market, and the book should be thrown at anyone caught trying to do that.
t show from start to finish. Root of the problem is that the BBA never came up with a properly rigorous definition of how LIBOR should be calculated. Get some banks to tell you the rates they think they can lend and borrow money as of 11am, ignore the highest and lowest rates, simple average of the others; bingo. That creates a perfectly adequate reference rate in the normal course of business. The fact that you could choose a slightly different method and come up with a rate that's a few basis points different on any given day and the fact that those few basis points might change settlement amounts by a few million quid doesn't matter a jot. There's no right or wrong with this stuff. It's just a definition and as long as everyone understands it, it's fair. But the problem is what's supposed to happen when the market is badly stressed? LIBOR was supposed to represent where a highly credit worthy bank could borrow money. What happens if you work for a bank that people, quite possibly completely irrationally, suddenly decide is not credit worthy? Should you quote the borrowing rate you can actually obtain in the market or the one you think you ought to be able to obtain, or the rate you think a creditworthy bank can currently obtain? Should you refuse to offer a rate on the basis that the market is currently f
ked and you genuinely have no idea at what rate you or anyone else could borrow money? Tumbleweed...What was clearly complete bulls
t was to offer to quote a bit high or low to try to favour your colleagues' positions. That was incredibly dumb, because the impact would be so close to zero as to make no difference. It was just silly bravado. But it was also a blatant attempt to manipulate the market, and the book should be thrown at anyone caught trying to do that.IJWS15 said:
BBC also say Evidence implicating Downing Street and the Bank of England was suppressed throughout the criminal trials.
Echos of the Post Office, officialdom riding roughshod over the legal process and the accused?
Having read the evidence (not all of it I admit) at the time, this was a legal, and I will emphasise legal, rigged betting network with loose work connections. Echos of the Post Office, officialdom riding roughshod over the legal process and the accused?
The only thing I found staggering , other than the brazen openness about it, was how low, how small the actual financial benefits were to moving Libor for the people doing it i.e the risks never really factored into the equation so therefore, the main prize on offer was a bottle of mid range shampoo down in Bishopsgate.
If there were big bads involved in downing Street or BOE it would have been another social circle.
Ian Geary said:
I'm curious how (or why) the appeals court turned down any chance of appeal down 5 times, before eventually getting to the supreme court.
.....
Because the justice system will always first look to defend the original verdicts in order to preserve the perception that justice was done and the guilty are punished. Is it really that much of a surprise....?.....
Sheepshanks said:
Why was Hayes's sentence so severe - 15yrs originally?
The original Court of Appeal judgement summarises he sentencing rationale from para 88 onwards: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/194...Hill92 said:
Sheepshanks said:
Why was Hayes's sentence so severe - 15yrs originally?
The original Court of Appeal judgement summarises he sentencing rationale from para 88 onwards: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/194...Evanivitch said:
Ah, another victimless corporate crime goes without anyone being held accountable, again. Quelle surprise.
Based on 30 seconds of reading it wasn't a crime. It was how the system worked. It's the equivalent of you being prosecuted for criminal damage when you pressed the brakes on a hire car and slightly wore the pads down. Technically, yes, you deliberately damaged the pads...BikeBikeBIke said:
Based on 30 seconds of reading it wasn't a crime. It was how the system worked. It's the equivalent of you being prosecuted for criminal damage when you pressed the brakes on a hire car and slightly wore the pads down. Technically, yes, you deliberately damaged the pads...
That's pretty much it. Of course when LIBOR started to be used as a benchmark then this is where the problems compounded.Condi said:
What is worse is that the BoE and other central banks were (likely, for the lawyers!) doing the same thing to a much larger degree, to essentially keep their countries solvent during the crisis. Those officials have never been investigated, and there has been no accountability for what they were doing.
The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
Paul Tucker was the BoE’s man who spent every day on the phone to the various banks interfacing between them and the BofE. Normally that would have been keeping abreast of what was going on in the markets but that morphed in to telling banks where to set Libor later on. He was at the epicentre of the BofE being caught with its trousers down….you could argue he was a major reason why things got so out of hand. Clueless. The UK is the last country to still have not quashed the convictions of those who were found guilty, even the US managed to see that they had done nothing wrong years ago.
Tom Hayes was undoubtedly a scapegoat….someone who used to be a good friend of mine was his boss at one stage fairly late in his career. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that his senior managers would have known how he would have been making the money he was. Bank’s just don’t let people make tens of millions of £ without knowing how.
That said Tom Hayes was had previous in terms of lacking ethics….I know someone who worked with him very early in his career. He got shown the revolving doors a couple of times by his employers…in those days employer and employee would reach an agreement and it suited both parties if employee left without a fuss. That can’t happen now….employer is obligated to report to the regulator, employee gets fired and almost certainly banned from the industry for life by the regulator.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff