UKC

Work is alight with the news that Tom Hayes got 14 years for his part in the LIBOR scandal. Kweku Adoboli only got 7 for a $1.4 billion loss at UBS.

The law IS an ass!

In reply to Indy:

Looked at another way, by manipulating the rate, millions, perhaps tens of millions, of others all lost out (for example, higher mortgage rates or lower saving rates and myriad other effects), so clobbering the culprits doesn't seem so bad. He's lucky he isn't in the US.

In reply to MG:


Do you have any background in these things or is that comment just a lefty 'we hate all bankers'?

In reply to Indy:


Yes, I have a mortgage, savings etc, with interest rates derived in part at least from the Libor rate.

or is that comment just a lefty 'we hate all bankers'?

Eh? No it's a comment about what to do with convicted fraudsters and thieves. Are you happy with a slap on the wrist for such behaviour?

In reply to Indy:


Why exactly? Also what is your background in the law to make such a judgement. You could start with the minimum term lowest band is 15 years (for adults) so he beats that.

In reply to MG:

Why are you assuming you paid more?

Barclays was manipulating the figures to lower its rate.

In reply to Indy:


There are very crucial differences in the cases, not least the number of offences. Adoboli faced only two charges. From the reports he seems to have been out of his depth when things started going wrong and carried on making ever-more desperate 'double-or-quits' attempts to trade his way out of a mire and just got deeper and more desperate. Crucially, the judge in the case said his motives were not primarily personal gain.

Hayes, by contrast, was at the heart of a conspiracy by multiple traders to systematically corrupt a key market purely and simply to line his own pockets at the expense of millions of other people. Also his so-called 'defence' of 'everyone was doing it, what's your problem?' will have not endeared him to the judge.

In reply to Indy:


Yes, it is way too slow and nothing like hard enough on bankers.

In reply to Indy:


I wasn't. I was assuming I paid the wrong amount. Some paid more, others less.


Ah well that's all right then. Let's ignore fraud if Barclays paid less.

If you work in finance then rather than trying to justify and explain away this sort of behaviour, I suggest you have a bit of think about ethics in the industry.

In reply to Indy:


Haha. Amazing. True Daily Mail comment.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Three (short) sentences written without the need for verbs. Spelt correctly, but still definitely a true Guardian reader.

In reply to Indy:



I agree. Adoboli should probably have got longer.
I'm guessing that's not what you mean though.

I look forward to your defence of Hayes who, as I understand, it ran his defence on the basis that his fraud wasn't dishonest because everyone else was doing it as well.

In reply to Philip:

Haha! Nice try . I actually don't read the Mail or the Guardian. Tend to stick to the Economist since I got a cheap subscription.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I'm a Beano man myself, it gives a more balanced view of the world than any of those, and I get a great temporary tattoo of Gnasher when I wipe my arse as well.

In reply to EddInaBox:

"In the bleak midwinter,
Walt the Weed did moan,
Because a hound called Gnasher,
Tripped him with a bone..."

All I remember from my Beano days.

In reply to Indy:




Glad to see you've already been told why you're wrong. What confused me is just a brief glance over some articles and explanations would have enlightened you, it hardly requires a specialist knowledge

In reply to Indy:

Hayes will be eligible for release on licence after 7 years, I don't believe many murders get out after 7 years (I don't actually have any figures though).

I don't work in finance and it's entirely possible I've misunderstood the seriousness of his crime but giving him a sentence roughly equivalent to that for committing an armed robbery or GBH with intent does seem a bit excessive. I'm not saying he didn't deserve a prison sentence though.

In reply to Indy:

Don't you mean "Shouldn't have been a fraudster instead"?

jk

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

His defence was better than that. He said his bosses also knew about it so its all fine.
I wonder if his "cooperation" with the cops to try and avoid getting extradited to the USA was also a minus mark for the judge.

I hope Indy comes back and explains exactly why he thinks the law is an ass.
Is it that they think he shouldnt have been prosecuted at all or should have just been given a light smack on the hand and allowed to walk away.

In reply to Indy:

My thought when I heard the sentence was that there must have been 12 or 14 very glum households last night, who are now wondering when they will get the knock on the door. I think the sentence totally appropriate.

In reply to Que Sera Sera:


Quite. And rightly so. I wonder if this signals a new approach to white collar crime in the UK. I think those who are surprised by the sentence are probably surprised because in the past such crime has been seen as less serious than violence and sentences have been correspondingly short. This is in contrast to the US approach that has long taken white collar crime seriously. When seriousness is considered as the overall harm done to society sentences this long or longer make total sense for serious fraud (and long sentences probably makes less sense for some violent crime).

In reply to robhorton:


For all that robbery and GBH are terrible for those involved their overall impact, in almost all cases, is actually very minor as it's isolated to very few individuals.

In the case of financial malpractice there are still victims, in cases like this there are potentially huge numbers of victims, and those victims still face very real consequences. It's pretty much impossible to calculate the equivalence of victim-hood when it's been abstracted away like this - but if just one business folded or one home was repossessed that wouldn't have been* somewhere down the lines as a result of his actions then the suffering inflicted could easily exceed the crimes you mention.

*I have no idea if this has happened in this case but the point is that paper crimes can have victims too.

In reply to Lemony:


Is "overall impact" taken into account in criminal sentencing guidelines ?

In reply to EddInaBox:


Very sadly true

In reply to Indy:

4/10 if only you hadn't posted that pesky second reply.

In reply to robhorton:


Well, I think this is one of those sentences that's intended to send out a message to others who might consider similar crimes. Fair or not, deterrence is considered a legitimate factor in deciding sentences. Much like all those kids getting 12 months for stealing a bottle of water during the riots, the sentence isn't so much a fitting punishment for the crime as much as it's a great big warning to others.