Bent bankers need jail not regulation

Quite rightly there is a mood in the country that people are simply p**** off with attitude of the banking fraternity and also the inability/unwillingness of Government, FSA, Police etc. to do anything about it. We don't need new laws they already exist - just enact them!

Collectively these guys have been bailed out by the taxpayer (in one form another) and their blatant disregard/lack of humility is quite staggering

At a very basic level their lies influencing the LIBOR rate have potentially benefitted the traders directly as well as the banks themselves. Traders work on commission and if the LIBOR rate in any way benefitted their trades (even by a single pip) then they have fraudulently interfered with the system in order to gain commission for themselves (fraud?)

Furthermore any trader worldwide (private as well as institutional) over the past 6/7 years that has used a 'carry trade' (difference in interest rates between currencies overnight) has potentially been affected by their actions. Bearing in mind the huge number of 'players' in the currency markets the exposure of those interfering with the LIBOR rates is potentially un-calculable - but certainly enough to bankrupt most of the globe

Quite simply all those who have earned commissions over the period in question should have it clawed back completely over the past 7 years

So I guess the answer is to prevent all those who tried to fix the LIBOR rate from hiding behind the corporate entity of their employers - i.e. make them personally liable for their actions together with their employer (joint & several liability)

As greed seems to be only driver for these organisations and their employers then a fine for both parties equivalent to their gross income over the period in question would seem to be the answer

Once this has been done a jail sentence should be set as a reminder just to reinforce the message

Then impose regulation and break-up the banks

... some odd job guy who owes just over £5k in tax gets a £750k confiscation order - where is the confiscation order here. A least the odd-job guy did some work for his money.

Makes you think the government don't care, because if the banks fiddle profits upwards, the tax take goes the same way, or is that just cynical?

What would be fair is if the £290m fine was pro-rated amongst the customers who have been defrauded!

I think the banks will come a cropper though, because they treat their customers like s***e even though for many they ar owned by their customers via the bailout. There are many foreign banks with money (far east I allude to) for whom the time is ripe to mop up vast percentages of the customer pool, as I think the loyalty of most has now been stretched well beyond breaking point into fine gossamer strands and they would switch anywhere that offered fair rates and terms.

I have doubts that the punishment fits the crime on all these high profile scams, fiddles, missellling, and downright fraud.

Do the overall profits exceed the penalties? Will a junior employee become a scapegoat to prevent the real culprits losing their golden egg paypackets and bonuses?

This sort of behaviour filters down. I am already getting decent honest clients asking me why they have to declare all their earnings (and pay tax on it) when the big boys are ripping off the country to the tune of millions! I feel sure that tax evasion will increase as a result.

The people (and the corporations) at the top should be setting standards, but the standards they set are the worst possible examples of ethics and responsibility.

Therefore this area is his 'specialised subject' and as such he knows or should know excactly what the score was - despite claiming plausible deniability

Letter from BD

'.. The first issue is that Barclays traders attempted to influence the bank’s submissions in order to try to benefit their own desks’ trading position ..'

'.. The second issue relates to decisions taken in relation to the LIBOR setting process during the credit crisis. The authorities found that Barclays reduced its LIBOR submissions to protect the reputation of the bank from negative speculation during periods of acute market stress ..'

and of course the inevitable mitigation - fraud for the best possible motives ...:

'.. Even taking account of the abnormal market conditions at the height of the financial crisis, and that the motivation was to protect the bank, not to influence the ultimate rate, I accept that the decision to lower submissions was wrong. ..'

Even now there is an element of justification. So I guess we should all be 'grateful' for this corruption because it may have save the taxpayer another bail-out; well done DB for being so public spirited!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1734757a-c157-11e1-8179-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1zGwDV2G9

Been here before - BarCap - http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/scandal-at-barclays-why-avendis-losers-will-sue-the-bank/

I've been watching the politics shows this morning, and the general consensus seems to be that he was either complicit, or negligent in his duties, and therefore should lose his job.

If he does go will he get an early retirement on a massive pension and a golden handshake? If so, it would appear more like a benefit rather than a punishment!

I wonder!

We have yet another misselling scam by the banks, and the Libor manipulation. I wonder what revelation will pop up next!

Apparently the whole of the city will head for the exit and a country that charges less tax...sorted!

Bob would appear to be either incompetent or complicit (does that sound a little like our friend Murdoch)...indeed this seems to have a familiar ring to all of our high profile resignations and defences recently......it seems they use the 'i forgot, i didn't realise, no one told me....' defence....they must all use the same lawyer or PR firm.

Looking at the Barclays share price graph - could someone explain how bonuses work because it seems to have nose dived

So the rational for bonuses is ? ...

Mike Rake

From May 2002 to September 2007 Rake was Chairman of KPMG International. Prior to his appointment as Chairman of KPMG International he was Chairman of KPMG in Europe and Senior Partner of KPMG in the United Kingdom

From 2008 - http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=2172721&privcapId=9964456&previousCapId=323899&previousTitle=BARCLAYS%20PLC

• Independent Non-Executive Director, Chairman of Audit Committee, Member of Corporate Governance & Nominations Committee, Member of Risk Committee and Non- Executive Director of Barclays Bank Plc
• Senior Independent Director and Member of Risk Committee
• Non Executive Director, Member of Audit Committee and Non Executive Director of Barclays PLC

BUT .... Sir Michael Rake, the bank’s senior independent director has been appointed deputy chairman at the bank and now he is being muted as a replacement for Marcus Agius after his resignation

WHOAH !!!

A non-executive, senior independant director, Senior Independent Director and Member of Risk Committee, Member of Audit Committee

Now bearing in mind - Barclays will have three objectives:

• to undertake a root and branch review of all of the past practices that have been revealed as flawed since the credit crisis started and identify implications for our business practices and culture going forward;
• to publish a public report of its findings; and
• to produce a new, mandatory code of conduct that will be applied across Barclays.

Presumably with all these 'high-flying' titles Mr Rake was on 'watch' over some of the period concerned - WHAT DID HE DO ABOUT IT

How can someone with even the vaguest connection with this scandal be suggested as a replacement for Agius? SO much for a clean sweep, clearly the roots run far too deep for anyone to actually mean this other than as lip service - once agin we have a selective broom

In fact Raike may well have failed in his primary duty as a non-executive director in the first place and as such should forfeit his position with Barclays entirely

ALSO FORFEIT ALL HIS OTHER POSITIONS AS WELL - i.e. EasyJet etc....

they are all simply part of the same cosy club of non execs and execs who decide on each others competence.....probably the same club that Mr King/the auditors/MPs etc use (albeit perhaps they use the tradesmen's entrance to ensure they are not seen.

with William Hill (through a 3rd party - nothing wrong with that or maybe just a little bit dishonest) on his own resignation

Bung on a few million or better still the entire Eurozone debts (1 Trillion) and problem solved

W.Hill payout enough to cover all worlds problems

If deemed dihonest then we will have an enquiry and 'learn from our mistakes' but heaven forbid anyone should be held accountable and fined personally

Own preference is that DB & others involved should be fined 100% of salary (& perks etc) for the period in question - i.e. from 2005-2012. Then slung in jail or rendition to US

Interesting little offering here - Societe General

Remember this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9359194/Rogue-trader-Jerome-Kerviel-faces-five-years-in-prison.html

'.. a six year investment which is designed to provide an income of 8.8% gross per year ..'

and the wrinkle is ...

'.. The 8.8% Coupon will be paid if, on any of the annual Valuation Dates, the FTSE 100 matches or exceeds 80% of its recorded closing level on 4 July 2012. If the Coupon is not paid in any year, it will be added to the next qualifying Valuation Date ..'

mmm - so guess its back to William Hill again

FTSE

Unless of course you are willing to take a punt