[clinch]

Originally Posted by SallyArmy

The chairman of the FSA said on Andrew Marr this morning that fixing Libor is not a criminal act. I cant say i know what the implications of that are.

Perhaps he should check out common law. I would have thought it was fraud.

[barnsleykeith]

Originally Posted by Annsyre

Again?

The date on the article Nick linked to is 25th March 2009?

A new article wouldn't refer to him as Sir Fred either?

[MARTYM8]

Originally Posted by C19th Fox

If they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear.

I think it is inevitable that there will be a Leverson style enquiry but it should not be allowed to hold up the Financial Services Bill - the Government are correct to ensure that LIBOR regulation is added to it, rather than delay the whole thing which is what would happen by implication if Milliband gets his way. However by calling for an enquiry I think he has hit on a mood in the country, but I think it will backfire hugely on Mr Balls.

Sorry - we don't need another tedious Leveson inquiry - dragging on for months and years with a nice report at the end that gets ignored. Its just more money for the lawyers - another group that would in my view benefit from some proper investigation of their activities!

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by Mr.Humphries

The public are unable to blame themselves for their profligacy. They need a whipping boy. How convenient for the public that it is the banks that have that dubious honour. I wonder who the public will blame next when Britain goes bankrupt.

Many of us were not to blame for the profligacy, for one how can young people be to blame for something that happened when they were children?

The bankers through their greed were the major players in the banking crisis which caused the problem (despite some people's attempts to misinform it was not excessive public spending it was bailing out the banks that did us). The bankers however despite causing the problem did not suffer but indeed carried on doing what they were doing which is creating money for themselves at the expense of others.

If the bankers had actually suffered from the problems they caused then they would not be so despised. Since they claimed to earn their money from the big risks they should now be accepting the downside i.e. they should be sleeping rough and begging for money to buy food. In reality they were facing no risk because those less well off paid for their mistakes and will continue to pay for them in the future.

[Tassium]

It's a harsh lesson for those who would behave unethically, morals eventually catch up and destroy you.

News International probably thought they would get away with their stuff too.

It's a similar situation for tax avoiders. "It's legal!" they cry, not realizing that really does not matter.

[ladymoanalot]

Poor little lambs. Maybe time to start considering Moet as opposed to Bollinger.

[Voynich]

It's the politics of envy isn't it? They should be able to do whatever they want to whoever they want.

[reglip]

When the public use the word bankers to describe those who are guilty of destroying our futures by lobbying successive governments to bail them out they are not describing their local Barclay's teller. It isn't a witch hunt its just laying the blame where it belongs

[Footylad]

How is wanting an inquiry or prosecution's for fraud, or conspiracy a with hunt lol

[reglip]

Originally Posted by Footylad

How is wanting an inquiry or prosecution's for fraud, or conspiracy a with hunt lol

Representatives of the banking industry in the media have been going on about witch hunts for a long time now I can remember it being a question on questiontime. Any negative story and theyll roll that old chestnut out obviously

[psionic]

Originally Posted by ladymoanalot

Poor little lambs. Maybe time to start considering Moet as opposed to Bollinger.

Or even Lambrini. A few years of austerity and no bonuses would do them good.

[WindWalker]

Originally Posted by SallyArmy

The chairman of the FSA said on Andrew Marr this morning that fixing Libor is not a criminal act. I cant say i know what the implications of that are.

I don't understand that.

I posted this in another thread.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Some of the key sections of this act are:

Section 2 outlines the regulatory objectives of the FSA: (a) market confidence; (b) financial stability (c) public awareness; (d) the protection of consumers; and (e) the reduction of financial crime.

Section 19 requires firms to be authorised to conduct regulated activities.

Section 21 makes it a criminal offence to issue a financial promotion (an invitation to engage in investment activity) in the United Kingdom unless it is issued or approved by an authorised firm or exempt via the Financial Promotions Order.

Section 59 states that a person cannot carry out certain controlling functions in a firm without approval by the FSA.

Section 71 allows private persons to sue a firm for damages if a person performing a controlled function is not approved.

Section 118 concerns market abuse.

Section 132 establishes the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal.

Section 138 grants the FSA rule-making power.

Section 150 allows private persons to sue for damages if an authorised firm has breached certain rules.

Section 165 gives the FSA power to require certain information.

Section 213 establishes the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Section 397 makes it a criminal offence to mislead a market or investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...rkets_Act_2000

So the last one would indicate it is?

[Lyricalis]

Originally Posted by reglip

Representatives of the banking industry in the media have been going on about witch hunts for a long time now I can remember it being a question on questiontime. Any negative story and theyll roll that old chestnut out obviously

They do love a bit of hyperbole. It's witch hunts if people call for proper regulation and punishment for people who have acted badly, and it's threats of mass exodus if people call for reform or transaction taxes.

The main problem with the financial sector is that far too many people in it started to feel untouchable and all powerful. I see it as being the current version of the troubles the country had with unions during the 1970s.

[Auld Snody]

It is not the witch hunt they should be bothering about. They should be watching out for the peasants, marching on their " castles" with flaming torches and pitchforks

[tghe-retford]

Originally Posted by SallyArmy

The chairman of the FSA said on Andrew Marr this morning that fixing Libor is not a criminal act. I cant say i know what the implications of that are.

The FSA has just made corporate fraud against consumers legitimate! I'd have to say with such a statement like that, as to what the point of the FSA is and whether it's fit for purpose?

[butchcasidy]

Originally Posted by mRebel

Let's hope their soon fearing prison.

very good point but instead the banks are fined. Barcleys £290 millions - it is our money the investers or the shareholders. This is yet another theft. Those guys responsible should go to prison.

[SallyArmy]

Originally Posted by WindWalker

I don't understand that.

I posted this in another thread.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Some of the key sections of this act are:

Section 2 outlines the regulatory objectives of the FSA: (a) market confidence; (b) financial stability (c) public awareness; (d) the protection of consumers; and (e) the reduction of financial crime.

Section 19 requires firms to be authorised to conduct regulated activities.

Section 21 makes it a criminal offence to issue a financial promotion (an invitation to engage in investment activity) in the United Kingdom unless it is issued or approved by an authorised firm or exempt via the Financial Promotions Order.

Section 59 states that a person cannot carry out certain controlling functions in a firm without approval by the FSA.

Section 71 allows private persons to sue a firm for damages if a person performing a controlled function is not approved.

Section 118 concerns market abuse.

Section 132 establishes the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal.

Section 138 grants the FSA rule-making power.

Section 150 allows private persons to sue for damages if an authorised firm has breached certain rules.

Section 165 gives the FSA power to require certain information.

Section 213 establishes the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

Section 397 makes it a criminal offence to mislead a market or investors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi...rkets_Act_2000

So the last one would indicate it is?

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

The FSA has just made corporate fraud against consumers legitimate! I'd have to say with such a statement like that, as to what the point of the FSA is and whether it's fit for purpose?

Well, im not a lawyer but i double checked and im sure he does say its not covered by criminal law. He can only take action based on the breach of FSA principles. Have a listen to the interview which begins @ 20 minutes in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ow_01_07_2012/

[barnsleykeith]

Originally Posted by SallyArmy

Well, im not a lawyer but i double checked and im sure he does say its not covered by criminal law. He can only take action based on the breach of FSA principles. Have a listen to the interview which begins @ 20 minutes in:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ow_01_07_2012/

An MP just been interviewed on the BBC. He is a member of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee. He said the same thing. He added that the FSA can start criminal prosecutions in the equity markets. But can't prosecute in the derivatives market. Just reporting what he said.

Here is the FSA statement on fining Barclays
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/fi...lays-jun12.pdf

Looks like the FSA can fine Barclays. But can't start criminal proceedings.

PS
Haven't read through all the above. It's quite lengthy. Any help in deciphering it will be much appreciated.

Here's the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0000008_en.pdf

[barnsleykeith]

Barclays agreed to settle early on in the FSA enquiry. Which meant they got a reduced fine. Paid £60m instead of £85.

[SallyArmy]

Originally Posted by barnsleykeith

An MP just been interviewed on the BBC. He is a member of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee. He said the same thing. He added that the FSA can start criminal prosecutions in the equity markets. But can't prosecute in the derivatives market. Just reporting what he said.

Here is the FSA statement on fining Barclays
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/fi...lays-jun12.pdf

Looks like the FSA can fine Barclays. But can't start criminal proceedings.

PS
Haven't read through all the above. It's quite lengthy. Any help in deciphering it will be much appreciated.

Here's the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0000008_en.pdf

Lol. I cant help with the deciphering - i can just about cope with an ISA!

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by MARTYM8

Its shocking that not a single senior banker has gone to jail here or the US despite their appalling mismanagement having almost bankrupted the world.

Only in Iceland - where they jailed the former PM as well - has there been any real holding of bankers to account.

Steal a bottle of water (as occurred in last summer's riots) you can be jailed for 3 months - effectively steal billions and no one comes after you!

PS According to Sky there are rumours that the Chairman of Barclays will be replaced - by another board member. The new likely Chairman is also the Chairman of BT and Easyjet. Jobs for the boys - and sickening really. How can you chair our second largest airline and biggest telecom company at once - let alone chair one of our biggest banks as well. No wonder we are in such a mess as there is no effective oversight by ooard members who have several directorships.

Agree completely. Must add that Agius, as you probably now know, has resigned, will probably get a pay off.

[mRebel]

Originally Posted by ThePhotographer

I will condemn a bastard banker who has taken part in this scandal. Will you condemn a benefit scrounger? I Want people to end up in prison over this.

My definition of benefit scrounger is one that refuses to work and is happy to live a life off benefits.

I do. I'd add that a benefit scrounger includes those you mention, who refuse work, and anyone leeching off the public purse. And you have to take account of the sums involved. Bankers have got away, and they have got away with, amounts of money a dole scrounger couldn't dream of.

[zx50]

The Bankers fear a witch hunt? They shouldn't have recklessly gambled obscene amounts of money, only to then stupidly lose it. They've been a big problem where this economy's concerned.

[Everything Goes]

Originally Posted by barnsleykeith

I've got two coconut halves tied together with a bit of string.

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8przKtIU-0s

[WindWalker]

Originally Posted by barnsleykeith

An MP just been interviewed on the BBC. He is a member of the Parliamentary Treasury Select Committee. He said the same thing. He added that the FSA can start criminal prosecutions in the equity markets. But can't prosecute in the derivatives market. Just reporting what he said.

Here is the FSA statement on fining Barclays
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/fi...lays-jun12.pdf

Looks like the FSA can fine Barclays. But can't start criminal proceedings.

PS
Haven't read through all the above. It's quite lengthy. Any help in deciphering it will be much appreciated.

Here's the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...0000008_en.pdf

Section 397 of Financial Services and Markets act 2000 seems to cover it as the summary from wiki indicates.

Misleading statements and practices.

397.—(1) This subsection applies to a person who—

(a) makes a statement, promise or forecast which he knows to be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;

(b) dishonestly conceals any material facts whether in connection with a statement, promise or forecast made by him or otherwise; or

(c) recklessly makes (dishonestly or otherwise) a statement, promise or forecast which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular.

(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies is guilty of an offence if he makes the statement, promise or forecast or conceals the facts for the purpose of inducing, or is reckless as to whether it may induce, another person (whether or not the person to whom the statement, promise or forecast is made)—

(a) to enter or offer to enter into, or to refrain from entering or offering to enter into, a relevant agreement; or

(b) to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by a relevant investment.

(3) Any person who does any act or engages in any course of conduct which creates a false or misleading impression as to the market in or the price or value of any relevant investments is guilty of an offence if he does so for the purpose of creating that impression and of thereby inducing
another person to acquire, dispose of, subscribe for or underwrite those investments or to refrain from doing so or to exercise, or refrain from exercising, any rights conferred by those investments.

There's more but the first three seem relevent don't they?