Barclays: why no criminal prosecutions?

After the credit crunch, it was very natural to think that surely someone somewhere ought to be punished for what happened.

But I was open to the argument that what had happened was a combination of incompetence, greed, systemic failure and macro-economic forces, rather than actual fraud — or at least that fraud was a small part of the story. And so it was not a matter for the criminal law.

And then this Barclays case comes along. And we have what, as far as I understand it, is a straightforward case of people conspiring to lie about important financial information in order to manipulate the market… and still no one is apparently facing criminal prosecution.

It’s not just that it would be satisfying to see a few City wide boys up before a judge. It’s that it makes you wonder how much other potential criminality has been left uninvestigated or unprosecuted for some reason. Because it’s easier to let sleeping dogs lie? Because fraud cases are expensive to investigate and prosecute? Because the authorities are still so worried about the fragility of the financial system that they’re scared of rocking the boat? Because of the same combination of cosiness and intimidation that stopped the police from investigating phone hacking properly?

The whole thing stinks.

One reply on “Barclays: why no criminal prosecutions?”

Of course it stinks. Human beings are involved, particularly human beings with power. It never ceases to surprise me how willing some people are to choose “a hat to wear” which states the position they choose to adopt. It is as if “the hat” they wear absolves them from any form of personal responsibility.
In any case it is always more difficult to maintain or raise one’s moral standards, than to let them slide. Better leave it there I think!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *