Banker cannot be named for legal reasons?
Banker cannot be named for legal reasons?
Author
Discussion

55palfers

Original Poster:

6,389 posts

195 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29520685

Any ideas why not please?

Thanks

Magic919

14,581 posts

232 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
I'd guess it's due to the other outstanding cases, but hopefully someone 'legal' can enlighten us.

ging84

9,548 posts

177 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
There will be one rule for us and another for the rest of you
that is from the elitism act 1897

anonymous-user

85 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
I assume that this is because the same banker faces jury trial on other charges, so he or she won't be named until that trial is over, as otherwise the jury might be prejudiced by reporting of the guilty plea. That's just my educated guess.

55palfers

Original Poster:

6,389 posts

195 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
Thank you BV


ellroy

7,858 posts

256 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
BV, if he's pleaded guilty could he be involved in some term of witness capacity as well that may prejudice other cases with people he worked with?

anonymous-user

85 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
Possibly. It would be a tricky call for defence counsel whether to seek to impeach the witness by putting to him or her that he had pleaded guilty to an offence.

johnfm

13,751 posts

281 months

Tuesday 7th October 2014
quotequote all
Surprised anyone pleaded guilty to this - unless they had a lot more compelling evidence than the various emails and Bloomberg messages where traders were asking setters for a slightly higher or lower rate.

Looking forward to the fraud charges against dodgy MPs...

anonymous-user

85 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all
Look backward for those - several MPs and a peer or two have been convicted already.

hajaba123

1,338 posts

206 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all
He's been outed on Twitter surprise, surprise..... Seems the Mail didn't remove his name from the details embedded in the blurred photo

Hol

9,316 posts

231 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all
johnfm said:
Surprised anyone pleaded guilty to this - unless they had a lot more compelling evidence than the various emails and Bloomberg messages where traders were asking setters for a slightly higher or lower rate.

Looking forward to the fraud charges against dodgy MPs...
Im not surprised at all.

This was a bunch of individuals who broke the law and their own employers rules by colluding with other individuals.
They did so using emails and phone calls, all of which could be accessed after the fact.



dmitsi

3,583 posts

251 months

Wednesday 8th October 2014
quotequote all
They had no problems naming him and others back in February/March when he was first charged.