 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35428279
So one guy gets thrown under the bus and the rest walk, or have I read that wrong?
Prosecutors had said the brokers conspired to rig the rate in exchange for treats such as takeaway curries and drinks.
I always assumed bankers earned enough to buy takeaway curry if they felt like one. See, if I was going to pull a stunt like that, I'd ask to get paid in something expensive.
The one with few social skills who was persuaded by the culture around him...So one fall-guy gets thrown under the bus
then big business claps the others on the back and goes back to rigging the prices of money, oil etc....
IIRC, there are 11 cases, so 4 left.
if I was going to pull a stunt like that,
The trouble is, it wasn't seen as a stunt, it was seen as "normal".
Giving banks the tools to set Libor has always seemed a bit like letting an alcoholic look after your pub to me.
The trouble is, it wasn't seen as a stunt, it was seen as "normal".
Sure, but a takeaway curry, FFS.
from my experience on an jury in financial conspiracy case, conspiracy to defraud is a tough one to prove for the prosecution. The case's are long tedious and very technical, and some jurors to be blunt can be a bit thick. Maybe there's a case to be made to have some of these as Judge only affairs.
Well,if individuals are not held accountable, then it should pave the way for lawsuits by American banks against the institutions concerned...at least I very much hope so....
Sure, but a takeaway curry, FFS.
I'd have wanted a Porsche at least, and not just the base model with the AM radio....
and some jurors to be blunt can be a bit thick.
they are supposed to be representative of the general public, so I would think that a few of them might be thick, most of them ignorant and some might even turn up to court in their pajamas.
I would hope that roughly half have below average intelligence 😉
the trouble with being a bit thick in a highly technical case is anything you don't understand ends up as "reasonable doubt".
The problem with long cases like that is that jury service is only up to two weeks, any longer and the smarter jurors will talk their way out of doing it due to "other pressing commitments" (quite easily done). So the trial will end up with a bunch of dullards, possibly with the odd retiree who might be a bit smarter but he (or she...) will be ploughing a lone furrow.
They are all guilty as f***