Serious Flawed Office

chewmylegoff

purch wrote: »

......on the other hand the BBA do sell licences to receive and/or distribute the data, so maybe I should shut up now :eek:

The point I think is that if you know people are relying on something to calculate the outcome of contractual agreements, and you deliberately and dishonestly manipulate that measure to benefit yourself at the expense of others, then you are defrauding other parties.

The problem I see with the cases is actually proving who caused damage to whom, given that everyone appears to have been at it, but that is a problem that only impacts damages in civil litigation. The criminal regime only requires you to attempt to defraud another party (both before and after 2007 when the new fraud act came into force).

Masomnia

It sounds very fraud-y to me, personal gain by deception and all that.

As Generali pointed out though, they're asked what they would have to pay if they went to a reasonable market at 11 am. During the credit crunch these transactions weren't happening, I'm given to understand.

So is: 'Well... there wasn't a reasonably sized market, there isn't a correct rate, I just made my best guess, who knows what it would be...' a reasonable defence?

It seems quite clear cut if they borrowed at 0.54% at 11 am from 'reasonable market' and then said they borrowed at 0.58% to Reuters, and their pal at Unicredit made a packet on it that it's fraud. But if no interbank lending is actually taking place, how can it be proved that the rate submitted was incorrect and fraudulent?

Loughton_Monkey

Looks like this guy has been reading this thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18908879

"Regulators and enforcement agencies are too cosy with the firms they supervise," he says. "There are loads of revolving doors between the regulators and the regulated."

Plus, he says, there have been no personal consequences for wrong doing - no jail, fines, public censure or banning - so, therefore no deterrents.