NFR....bankers on trial

[Logicalman]

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).

[Twig]

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).

[Slaphead in Qatar]

I am an investment banker. Some of us are nice people.

[Logicalman]

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/), 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.

[Logicalman]

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.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I wish I was an Investment Banker.

[Logicalman]

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.

[Logicalman]

I wish I was an Investment Banker.

Better than a Merchant Banker (so I have heard)  :005:

[Woolly Mammoth]

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. 💰💸💵💷💴💶

[Holders]

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. 💰💸💵💷💴💶

How? It makes you deaf.