First sentence for rate rigging

Graham_Devon

14 years too.

Former City trader Tom Hayes has been found guilty at a London court of rigging global Libor interest rates.

He was sentenced to 14 years in prison for conspiracy to defraud.
The 35-year old is the first individual to face a jury trial for manipulating the rate, which is used as a benchmark for trillions of pounds of global borrowing and lending.

Many of the world's leading banks have paid heavy financial penalties for tampering with the key benchmark.

The jury found Hayes guilty on all eight charges of conspiracy to defraud.

He would pay up to $100,000 to brokers to keep the libor rate as low as possible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33763628

cells

supposedly he was doing this from age 26.

Assuming he did a Msci and got into a bank straight away he would of been 22 years old then. So within 4 years he was given the power and rank and clearance to fiddle one of the biggest benchmarks

or maybe he is taking the fall for others

vivatifosi

Sky has been reporting that he has aspie tendencies and didn't know where the boundaries were. Surely he had a boss who knew this but chose not to rein him in.

Not suggesting that he shouldn't go to jail, but 14 years sounds terribly punitive when compared to sentences for rape, murder, child abuse, etc.

princeofpounds

Not suggesting that he shouldn't go to jail, but 14 years sounds terribly punitive when compared to sentences for rape, murder, child abuse, etc.

I don't think it's possible to convey quite how important the nature of the financial variables he was fiddling are. They affect everything, most notably the amount that everyone pays on their mortgages. And I don't mean just UK everyone.


Now probably sometimes he wanted it lower and sometimes higher, so the net impact is not entirely clear and never will be. But overall the market was paying him a profit every time he did this, so you could estimate the damage from that profit I suppose.

michaels

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sky has been reporting that he has aspie tendencies and didn't know where the boundaries were. Surely he had a boss who knew this but chose not to rein him in.

Not suggesting that he shouldn't go to jail, but 14 years sounds terribly punitive when compared to sentences for rape, murder, child abuse, etc.

I think generally the manipulators made profit for their teams even if their bank as a whole was among those who lost out. Some serious lack of internal controls to let such a situation arise.

princeofpounds

Oh, and I probably didn't answer your post in full vivatifosi - I'm often surprised by the light nature of sentences in other crimes such as you cite, particularly given many sentences are only served to the half-way point.


I think that's particularly the case in assault cases, where some horrendous beatings are dished out and the sentences are often measured in weeks and months.

Mistermeaner

Does seem harsh - can only assume those above him will suffer the same but unfortunately the buck never seems to go too high in stuff like this.

I work in Germany alot, not sure it applies to banking but in my industry each company has a nominated man at the top who is personally and legally responsible for everything. If anything goes wrong he (and others) take the fall - he's well paid but makes Damn sure the right things are happening as his !!!! is on the block.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I think generally the manipulators made profit for their teams even if their bank as a whole was among those who lost out. Some serious lack of internal controls to let such a situation arise.

Well ironically it shows that the internal controls (Chinese Walls) are working correctly and teams aren't communicating market moving information to each other.

Time was when research subjects were circulated to bidding teams to confirm that they weren't about to put a 'sell' recommendation on a company we were trying to raise money for.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Well ironically it shows that the internal controls (Chinese Walls) are working correctly and teams aren't communicating market moving information to each other.
...

IT systems have been using role based authorisation and access for some time. For the most part it does work.

kabayiri

I wonder how much of this sentence is inspired by a "look how tough we are" message.

I wish I could find a link, but I listened to a radio program which mentioned that our American cousins are not impressed at all with Libor abuse.

Is it a case of we (UK) act or they act on our behalf?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

IT systems have been using role based authorisation and access for some time. For the most part it does work.

I'm yet to meet an IT or compliance department that can stop people getting together for a pint or a coffee.