Finally, 4 senior members of Barclays to go on trial, conspiracy to commit fraud. We can all hope they get their come uppance. 092.gif
:046:
This is a football forum.
None of the real perpetrators will be thrown in jail... those who are being so are just scapegoats given free reign and misleading info on what they should do.
I thought for a moment that we had a prospective new player called Bankers having a trial.
Let's be nice about it, eh?
Close season and all that, we let a few NFA posts get on here - and the guy even put it in the title, so if you don't want to read it, why bother to take the time to comment at all, eh?
Lets move on .......
I met Tom Kalaris several times when I worked at Barclays Capital. He was a tosser, and I hope he goes down.
Quote from: Logicalman on July 17, 2017, 06:10:03 PM
Let's be nice about it, eh?
Close season and all that, we let a few NFA posts get on here - and the guy even put it in the title, so if you don't want to read it, why bother to take the time to comment at all, eh?
Lets move on .......
well done my thoughts precisely but it's better coming from a mod.
There is no difference between robbing a bank and owning one
Quote from: jarv on July 17, 2017, 02:14:44 PM
Finally, 4 senior members of Barclays to go on trial, conspiracy to commit fraud. We can all hope they get their come uppance. 092.gif
:plus one:
Sorry. I did not mean to start anything. It is summer, I read the news and it made me smile plus the fact that a very good friend of mine lost her house and the 30,000 she put into it. So, I just felt like sharing the news. I will leave my personal thoughts at the door. Come on Fulham. A good mate of mine supports Norwich, I am getting tense already and if I was loaded would fly in for that one.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty
The real truth is, unlike Iceland who punished their bankers for fraud. We have let them all get away with it. This latest Barclays scandal is really not even close to being that important in the scandal that was and is our financial system.
We only have to look at how the banks have recovered while the public suffer through poor interest rates. Don't believe the lie that low interest rates are good for the economy because they are not. The prices of utilities, insurance etc have gone up so much and so quickly that any loan you decided to take out for mortgages or whatever was probably spent on other expenses. We have been conned. As usual.
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
Quote from: MrD1879 on July 17, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
There is the con. Why do you think they are being done for keeping the interest rates artificially low? If inflation is low. What exactly makes your weekly shop, utility bills, rates, fuel, insurance climb with some adding hundreds onto the bill. It is a con and with interest rates so low. Savings are being spent and guess what happens next? Increase borrowing and more business for the banks after their bad press. Simple con but it worked.
Quote from: SG on July 17, 2017, 10:13:16 PM
What happened to innocent until proven guilty
I think it went the same way as one law for some and one law for the rest of us law-abiding citizens! :005:
Quote from: Logicalman on July 18, 2017, 08:26:03 PM
Quote from: SG on July 17, 2017, 10:13:16 PM
What happened to innocent until proven guilty
I think it went the same way as one law for some and one law for the rest of us law-abiding citizens! :005:
Actually, I think it went away with today's ever changing always up to date news coverage... fp.gif
Quote from: Statto on July 18, 2017, 01:03:24 AM
Firstly this is nothing to do with LIBOR. What Barclays are alleged to have done here is provide "financial assistance" to the Qataris when they bailed Barclays out by taking a stake in the bank in 2008. In other words they used their other shareholders' money to assist the Qataris, which is unlawful because it dilutes the existing shareholders. I don't know the intricacies of it beyond that.
Seocndly LIBOR is not the same as the Bank of England base rate, which the BoE uses to control inflation, quite legitmately, in the best interests of the state and the public. A small amount of inflation is good for the economy, which is why the BoE has targeted 2%. For most of the last few years it's been below that level, i.e., unhealthily low.
Thirdly when Barclays did manipulate LIBOR it was manipulated in both directions. It was manipulated downward to make the bank's overall financial position seem better. Separately, traders manipulated it both up and down to improve their own positions in products that referenced LIBOR.
Other than that I agree with MrD1879. Hysteria and poor journalism and, evidently from this thread, a lack of understanding generally.
I agree with what you've said there, though I seem to recall the issue behind the Qatar was one of receiving payments for the bailout, with a quid-pro-quo loan from the bank back to those who had gifted the bail out money by way of a loan, thus they used the bailout money to make the loan back, which, from what I (admittedly in a very limited manner) understand is considered a fraud within the terms of the law governing such transactions. This is just the gist of what I understand from reading different articles on the subject, as my personal knowledge of fraud in these circumstances is as limited as the finding of rocking-horse poop on the Queens highway!
Quote from: Logicalman on July 18, 2017, 08:32:53 PM
Quote from: Statto on July 18, 2017, 01:03:24 AM
Firstly this is nothing to do with LIBOR. What Barclays are alleged to have done here is provide "financial assistance" to the Qataris when they bailed Barclays out by taking a stake in the bank in 2008. In other words they used their other shareholders' money to assist the Qataris, which is unlawful because it dilutes the existing shareholders. I don't know the intricacies of it beyond that.
Seocndly LIBOR is not the same as the Bank of England base rate, which the BoE uses to control inflation, quite legitmately, in the best interests of the state and the public. A small amount of inflation is good for the economy, which is why the BoE has targeted 2%. For most of the last few years it's been below that level, i.e., unhealthily low.
Thirdly when Barclays did manipulate LIBOR it was manipulated in both directions. It was manipulated downward to make the bank's overall financial position seem better. Separately, traders manipulated it both up and down to improve their own positions in products that referenced LIBOR.
Other than that I agree with MrD1879. Hysteria and poor journalism and, evidently from this thread, a lack of understanding generally.
I agree with what you've said there, though I seem to recall the issue behind the Qatar was one of receiving payments for the bailout, with a quid-pro-quo loan from the bank back to those who had gifted the bail out money by way of a loan, thus they used the bailout money to make the loan back, which, from what I (admittedly in a very limited manner) understand is considered a fraud within the terms of the law governing such transactions. This is just the gist of what I understand from reading different articles on the subject, as my personal knowledge of fraud in these circumstances is as limited as the finding of rocking-horse poop on the Queens highway!
No need for rocking horse poop modesty, Mr Logicalman. Your analysis of the allegation is correct. On the stock market, what Barclays is alleged to have done is very, very naughty.
As I understand it, the problem had its roots in over-lending in the US ("sub-prime") and the removal of the BoE's regulatory role as one of the first acts of a former Chancellor ("no more boom and bust"). The bankers took advantage of the environment created by governments and the lack of adequate regulation, it's the way they're made.
Apparently, the Qatari deal was technically against the rules but was primarily intended to be in Barclays' best interests and - as some have pointed out - in passing saved the taxpayer money but that was not the objective.
The real villain of the piece (in the UK anyway) was that inept Chancellor.
We are no far from entering another disaster. As I have said the borrowing spree and higher bills will eventually return us to the disaster of a few years ago. Moving on from why a few banker from Barclays have been picked out while the the real conspiracy is still with us. Although not in the same sphere as the housing loan collapse. We are close to a debt bubble burst with subprime car loans.
If there were a similar situation, the state would find it much more difficult to intervene due to the level of debt and deficit still remaining from the last one. That must be Nr. 2 on the government's to-do list.
The Goverment or Governments, aren't they the people who invented the phrase " ime alright Jack pull up the Ladder ".
I am just relieved that all my savings are under the floorboards, and unfortunately also in my wife's purse. With the exception of my Premier Bonds, which has resulted in receiving another £25 cheque last week. Never won anything more, but they all add up.
I have never banked at Barclays, but since the year dot, people in high places have got away with literally murder due to their connections.
Corruption is in their nature. It comes with the desire to be Independent, Financially Secure, The opportunity to extend an Individuals Power over others, and the polishing of ones Ego.
It can bring out the worst in Human Nature. But sometimes the bigger you are the harder you fall.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on July 19, 2017, 09:54:00 AM
The Goverment or Governments, aren't they the people who invented the phrase " ime alright Jack pull up the Ladder ".
I am just relieved that all my savings are under the floorboards, and unfortunately also in my wife's purse. With the exception of my Premier Bonds, which has resulted in receiving another £25 cheque last week. Never won anything more, but they all add up.
I have never banked at Barclays, but since the year dot, people in high places have got away with literally murder due to their connections.
Corruption is in their nature. It comes with the desire to be Independent, Financially Secure, The opportunity to extend an Individuals Power over others, and the polishing of ones Ego.
It can bring out the worst in Human Nature. But sometimes the bigger you are the harder you fall.
Blame Darwin then?
Quote from: Holders on July 19, 2017, 09:57:45 AM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on July 19, 2017, 09:54:00 AM
The Goverment or Governments, aren't they the people who invented the phrase " ime alright Jack pull up the Ladder ".
I am just relieved that all my savings are under the floorboards, and unfortunately also in my wife's purse. With the exception of my Premier Bonds, which has resulted in receiving another £25 cheque last week. Never won anything more, but they all add up.
I have never banked at Barclays, but since the year dot, people in high places have got away with literally murder due to their connections.
Corruption is in their nature. It comes with the desire to be Independent, Financially Secure, The opportunity to extend an Individuals Power over others, and the polishing of ones Ego.
It can bring out the worst in Human Nature. But sometimes the bigger you are the harder you fall.
Blame Darwin then?
I have just checked under my floor boards, and I am laughing all the way to the bank.
But not Barclays or the Bank of Scotland.
I shall get back to you about Darwin, but I think he was two footed.
Quote from: Statto on July 19, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
Quote from: Holders on July 19, 2017, 07:43:44 AM
As I understand it, the problem had its roots in over-lending in the US ("sub-prime") and the removal of the BoE's regulatory role as one of the first acts of a former Chancellor ("no more boom and bust"). The bankers took advantage of the environment created by governments and the lack of adequate regulation, it's the way they're made.
Apparently, the Qatari deal was technically against the rules but was primarily intended to be in Barclays' best interests and - as some have pointed out - in passing saved the taxpayer money but that was not the objective.
The real villain of the piece (in the UK anyway) was that inept Chancellor.
Mistakes were made, not least by a lot of people borrowing more money than they could afford to repay. Generally if someone lends me money and I can't pay them back, I expect them to be angry at me, not the other way around. People are also quick to forget that the financial services sector is one of the only things we're still good at in this country, contributing more to tax receipts than agriculture, construction, manufacturing etc. Nonetheless banks do have a social responsibility and I agree they were in the wrong in lots of respects, as were the regulators like you say.
As you seem to suggest (in another post) it reminds us of the objective of austerity, something it's easy to forget.
Now having lit the fuse and turned this into a full blown politics thread I'll step back and wait for it to blow up...
I was suggesting that it wasn't an arbitrary whim but had a hard-nosed objective and we ignore the debt/deficit at considerable peril.
Quote from: Statto on July 19, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
Quote from: Holders on July 19, 2017, 07:43:44 AM
As I understand it, the problem had its roots in over-lending.
Now having lit the fuse and turned this into a full blown politics thread I'll step back and wait for it to blow up...
Statto, you make some very good points and I admire your knowledge.
But as for lighting the fuse. Isn't that what Guido Fawkes did in 1605, and look what happened to him.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on July 19, 2017, 10:25:00 AM
Quote from: Statto on July 19, 2017, 10:04:26 AM
Quote from: Holders on July 19, 2017, 07:43:44 AM
As I understand it, the problem had its roots in over-lending.
Now having lit the fuse and turned this into a full blown politics thread I'll step back and wait for it to blow up...
Statto, you make some very good points and I admire your knowledge.
But as for lighting the fuse. Isn't that what Guido Fawkes did in 1605, and look what happened to him.
Yep, he had a celebratory evening named after him! Fame in death, sort of.
Quote from: Statto on July 18, 2017, 01:03:24 AM
Firstly this is nothing to do with LIBOR. What Barclays are alleged to have done here is provide "financial assistance" to the Qataris when they bailed Barclays out by taking a stake in the bank in 2008. In other words they used their other shareholders' money to assist the Qataris, which is unlawful because it dilutes the existing shareholders. I don't know the intricacies of it beyond that.
Seocndly LIBOR is not the same as the Bank of England base rate, which the BoE uses to control inflation, quite legitmately, in the best interests of the state and the public. A small amount of inflation is good for the economy, which is why the BoE has targeted 2%. For most of the last few years it's been below that level, i.e., unhealthily low.
Thirdly when Barclays did manipulate LIBOR it was manipulated in both directions. It was manipulated downward to make the bank's overall financial position seem better. Separately, traders manipulated it both up and down to improve their own positions in products that referenced LIBOR.
Other than that I agree with MrD1879. Hysteria and poor journalism and, evidently from this thread, a lack of understanding generally.
Spot on. Let's be clear, the deal Barclays put together with the Qataris (not the nicest of states BTW) was against stock exchange rules so they are due a rap over the knuckles. However that same deal also meant they avoided any need for a publicly funded bailout and so saved the tax payers a bill. You can look at this one two ways, but not the most heinous of crimes. Certainly not in the Fred Goodwin league or even close.
Quote from: MrD1879 on July 17, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
The difference between savings rates and borrowing rates is huge, when I see that cap close I may be come less antagonistic towards the banking world. At the moment I can't hear a good word spoken in their favour.
Quote from: filham on August 08, 2017, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: MrD1879 on July 17, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
The difference between savings rates and borrowing rates is huge, when I see that cap close I may be come less antagonistic towards the banking world. At the moment I can't hear a good word spoken in their favour.
So you don't; use credit cards, have a current account, set up direct debits, have a mortgage, have a pension, etc etc. No, can't possibly be anything positive to say about the banking sector.
Low interest rates are throttling growth and we will sadly be hitting another depression very soon. This time we are in a growing debt and despite the Banks insistence on keeping the interest rates at nothing. It clearly has not worked.
Yes slightly off topic I know.
Quote from: Statto on August 08, 2017, 12:55:50 PM
Something new for the forum. Not only do we all know better than Jokanovic when it's best to take off Norwood, but now we also know better than the BoE/MPC (and the Fed and every other central bank taking the same action) what's best for the nation's economy.
049:gif
If a manager picks a team that is constantly losing. But he keeps telling me it it the right team and he knows best. If a bank tells me that keeping interest rates down will make the economy grow. But we end up with a growing debt despite austerity measures. If I am told that keeping the interest rates down helps inflation. But my weekly shop and utility bills climb up and up. If a doctor tells me that the drug I am taking is safe but my arms drop off and my skins turns to jelly. I question my betters because I know they are wrong. Those that don't will forever live with high bills and a poor team and a decaying body. Question, question and debate. Just accepting things is not a healthy way to see things. 049:gif
Quote from: Twig on August 08, 2017, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: filham on August 08, 2017, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: MrD1879 on July 17, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
The difference between savings rates and borrowing rates is huge, when I see that cap close I may be come less antagonistic towards the banking world. At the moment I can't hear a good word spoken in their favour.
So you don't; use credit cards, have a current account, set up direct debits, have a mortgage, have a pension, etc etc. No, can't possibly be anything positive to say about the banking sector.
Afraid we have to use most of these banking services, the banks have arranged things in such a way as we have little choice.
In particular the credit card is a necessary evil as certain things like booking a theatre ticket cant be achieved without it but the interest rates for any poor sole who fails to clear the card at the end of the month are extortionate
Quote from: filham on August 08, 2017, 04:58:41 PM
Quote from: Twig on August 08, 2017, 10:38:03 AM
Quote from: filham on August 08, 2017, 10:03:06 AM
Quote from: MrD1879 on July 17, 2017, 10:47:12 PM
Low interest rates are good for inflation. The savings rates are at an all time low but so are borrowing rates. The funny thing is the Barclays guys are being sent to trial for rigging libor to infact make rates lower for the wholesale market.
So much hysteria and poor journalism by mostly the red tops drives this kind of thread. Laughable really
The difference between savings rates and borrowing rates is huge, when I see that cap close I may be come less antagonistic towards the banking world. At the moment I can't hear a good word spoken in their favour.
So you don't; use credit cards, have a current account, set up direct debits, have a mortgage, have a pension, etc etc. No, can't possibly be anything positive to say about the banking sector.
Afraid we have to use most of these banking services, the banks have arranged things in such a way as we have little choice.
In particular the credit card is a necessary evil as certain things like booking a theatre ticket cant be achieved without it but the interest rates for any poor sole who fails to clear the card at the end of the month are extortionate
Totally agree with this.
Disagreeing with how the economy is run, or the manner in which the banking industry does business isn't the same as opting out, as filham says quite rightly, it's almost impossible not to be part of,or partake in, the industry these days as electronic finance is the bread and butter of how we live (not exactly feasible to keep all the money under mattress in this day and age), so perhaps a little of an unfair question given the way the banking industry has gotten into bed with those that govern our society. CiP: Can you pay your tax bill by sending cash in an envelope (not in person of course) to the taxman? I can't, only EFT, Credit/Debit card and Cheques are permitted.
There's a world ofdifference between traditional banking, like current and deposit accounts, cheques, credit cards, mortgages, electronic transfers etc. and the sort of speculative "instruments" that got the system into such trouble I had a neighbour once who ran a hedge fund; he tried to explain it once and I had no idea what he was on about - for me that was just useless unproductive exploitation - but Capt. Mainwaring stuff, there's nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: Statto on August 08, 2017, 12:55:50 PM
Something new for the forum. Not only do we all know better than Jokanovic when it's best to take off Norwood, but now we also know better than the BoE/MPC (and the Fed and every other central bank taking the same action) what's best for the nation's economy.
049:gif
Statto old fruit - Are you a spokesperson for The Establishment? lol
Quote from: Statto on August 08, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Sorry but can one of the posters replying to Twig clarify what your point is?
As far as I can tell Twig was making the very relevant point that banks perform a variety of useful social functions, such as keeping savings safe, facilitating all sorts of long distance payments, allowing people to buy homes and small businesses to grow.
Those services that don't involve credit are generally free, in a world where very little else is.
If you don't like credit or the costs attached to that, then unless you're severely lacking in self-control it remains easy and simple to avoid. There's a big difference between using electronic banking services (which I do) and using a credit card or other short-term borrowing (which I don't).
Thanks Statto put rather more eloquently than I had time for. I also agree with Holders who made the point that there is a big difference between retail banking and investment banking. Although even in investment banking there are big differences between many of the essential services offered to companies seeking lending for capital investment, support for acquisitions etc. vs esoteric speculative instruments using hedges, derivatives, currency arbitrage etc. (and often complicated combos of them all!).
My core point is that it is lazy thinking to just lump all banks and bankers together and "hate" bankers. After all, we are all rightly critical of lazy sports journalism and yet we can be guilty of similar lazy mindedness.
Quote from: Statto on August 08, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
If you don't like credit or the costs attached to that, then unless you're severely lacking in self-control it remains easy and simple to avoid.
Oh mate. Look at the entire economy, from our mad mortgages, kids paying 6% pa. on student loans, credit cards & equity withdrawal funding everyday expenses in a world of stagnant real wages & zero hours contracts. Not to mention food banks, loan sharks, benefit sanctions and scumbag pay-day lenders.
Nothing to do with self-control, Statto. Everything to do with people being forced deeper and deeper into debt.
Quote from: Statto on August 08, 2017, 07:37:55 PM
Sorry but can one of the posters replying to Twig clarify what your point is?
As far as I can tell Twig was making the very relevant point that banks perform a variety of useful social functions, such as keeping savings safe, facilitating all sorts of long distance payments, allowing people to buy homes and small businesses to grow.
Those services that don't involve credit are generally free, in a world where very little else is.
If you don't like credit or the costs attached to that, then unless you're severely lacking in self-control it remains easy and simple to avoid. There's a big difference between using electronic banking services (which I do) and using a credit card or other short-term borrowing (which I don't).
So a Mortgage or Loan isn't credit?
Quote from: Statto on July 17, 2017, 06:54:59 PM
OP is misguided IMO. Personally I don't agree with the fundamental idea that the whole banking industry should get some sort of "come uppance" for the financial crisis but that's another debate for another day. Whatever your general views, with regard to this specific case Barclays was one of the banks that didn't have to go cap in hand to the taxpayer and the alleged fraud didn't affect the public here. With all due respect I'm willing to bet hardly any of the people reading this would even understand it (and that's not me saying i'm one of those who do). None of the reports I've seen in that national press have even tried to explain it properly, even the broadsheets.
Agree with this, and pretty much everything you've said on this thread tbh. People are just spewing crap all over the place here. Pretty sick of the bankers = evil narrative. It's lazy, it's easy, and most of it is just repeated straight the front page of the Sun.
I'm not so certain that whether it directly impacts the common man on the street is a good yard stick to determine whether something is unlawful or not, or whether that same common man should bear an interest in the incident.
By all accounts Barclays avoided taking the public money by using their influence with a foreign entity in a manner that English Law does not permit, and likely to avoid further oversight by the UK Government that was attached to the bail-out monies. That is the crux of the matter.
Its is often called White-Collar crime, a lovely name given to an act that most of us would not understand or even wish to, but nevertheless, it is a law put in place to ensure that bankers, and their clients, keep their accounting clean. The common man on the street WAS affected by the issues and fall-out of the banking crisis, of which Barclays was one of the players, and had the banking industry as a whole actually acted in the interest of their customers prior to 2008, we might not have seen such a drastic melt-down, so, when taking that into account, then it is something we should all sit up and take notice of.
We entrust our money with banks and the bankers, and we should always be assured that not only do they work with our money within the confines of the law but they are seen doing so, without any impropriety.
I was a lucky one, I wasn't so directly affected by what happened, but plenty were, and therefore when we talk about the "come uppance" we talk about the fact that, even following what happened in 2008, institutions like Barclays continue, unabated, to find way around, bend, and willingly break the laws put in place to stop such things from happening. A case in point would be the Wells Fargo scandal recently in the US.
As for the explanation of exactly what happened, without the full investigation notes and the evidence of what constituted the fraud, it is impossible to do anything further than speculate, as the news coverage has done, though certain facts are in the public domain, and so I would imagine that anyone actually interested could determine, from those facts released by the SFO and the charges to be brought, exactly what happened, though we do know that the two initial charges relate to false representation and also unlawful financial assistance, both at the institution and personal level (the individual bank officers).
Logicalman I don't disagree with much of your post but I'm nor sure it is accurate to say that Barclays' actions were contrary to English law. It was my understanding (and I haven't gone back and reread it) that they broke the stock exchange rules rather than English law (whether those same actions also contravened the governance guidelines of the Central Bank and the Basel pillars I am not sure).
I am an investment banker. Some of us are nice people.
Quote from: Twig on August 09, 2017, 02:43:56 PM
Logicalman I don't disagree with much of your post but I'm nor sure it is accurate to say that Barclays' actions were contrary to English law. It was my understanding (and I haven't gone back and reread it) that they broke the stock exchange rules rather than English law (whether those same actions also contravened the governance guidelines of the Central Bank and the Basel pillars I am not sure).
I am only going on the reports that the SFO have charged the company with two counts of fraud by false representation and one count of unlawful financial assistance, and further criminally charged individuals with fraud.
I don't see this as a SEC-type case considering the charges, as the charges were formalized at Southwark CC and according to the SFO page on the matter (https://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/barclays-qatar-holding/ (https://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/barclays-qatar-holding/)), the charges, in part, refer to s1 and s2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and s1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, others do refer to s151 of the Companies Act though.
Quote from: Slaphead in Qatar on August 09, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
I am an investment banker. Some of us are nice people.
A lot are mate, I know a few people in the financial sector in NY, and they are quite trustworthy, just the few that spoil it for others.
I wish I was an Investment Banker.
Quote from: Statto on August 09, 2017, 02:27:30 PM
Logicalman if we were to debate "2008" I actually think we might well agree on a lot but for me you just can't talk sensibly about that if you conflate it with govt monetary policy, housing supply/demand problems, tuition fees, the financial assistance legal case, etc, like we're doing on this thread.
I can agree with that totally, I tend to separate the policies of government from the policies of financial institutions that break the law to further their own interests and line their, and those of others, pockets whilst the common man (e.g. taxpayers) are made to pay for the misdeeds of the few. This investigation and prosecution of Barclays is long overdue for the banking sector for that sorry period of their history.
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on August 09, 2017, 03:50:08 PM
I wish I was an Investment Banker.
Better than a Merchant Banker (so I have heard) :005:
Quote from: Logicalman on August 09, 2017, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Woolly Mammoth on August 09, 2017, 03:50:08 PM
I wish I was an Investment Banker.
Better than a Merchant Banker (so I have heard) :005:
I believe I have heard that as well. 💰💸💵💷💴💶