You’ve heard about the difference between charges brought and convictions achieved?

News broke yesterday that Barclays Bank is to be charged with criminal offences. I stress, not the directors or some names individual, but the Bank itself.

The charge does, admittedly, relate to events in the past. It is alleged that in 2008 the Bank lent £3 billion ( I stress, billion) to Qatar so that Qatar could use those funds to buy shares in Barclays that then ensured Barclays would not need to be nationalised, unlike Lloyd’s and RBS.

There was just one problem with this arrangement. It was illegal. Banks may not explicitly lend to assist others to buy shares in themselves.

Barclays, of course, knew this.

Well, no, not quite. The allegation is that the actions were illegal and that this was known.

Has Barclays been threatened with the loss of all its public contracts? No.

Err, punishment comes after the trial, no?

14 comments on “You’ve heard about the difference between charges brought and convictions achieved?

  1. Since ignorance is no defence in law, I fail to see the point of: ‘The allegation is that the actions were illegal and that this was known.’ I don’t say that Ritchie is right – of course not! – but…

  2. Why are individuals rarely charged? Why punish innocent bank shareholders rather than actual wrongdoers?

    Because, it’s got zip to do with law, crime or punishment for a misdeed, it’s just a naked cash grab, a new and increasingly common form of tax. Even worse it will wind up being some sort of SJW commie social engineering with some or all of the “Fine” going to The Internationale Glee Club or some such.

  3. OK so it’s an offence for a company to give financial assistance to a 3rd party to buy shares in itself. But candidly there are neo liberal problems here :

    The directors who approved the loans are not the company
    Were the loans granted for the purchase of Barclays shares……. Etc

    Foss v Harbottle etc

    I imagine that the directors got top – notch advice on wording and stuff from someone other than the moron in Ely

    Tenthly, I find Tubers intensely sexy

  4. Alex:

    Who am I to believe, you or Spudnik, who says “I stress, not the directors or some names individual, but the Bank itself.”

    A quick Google shows that indeed some Barclay’s individual directors/officers are going on trial. So what is Spudnik on about? Different acts? Or is he just being his usual idiot self?

    The Guardian has something about this time the operating bank being charged rather than the bank’s holding company. Is that it?

    If so, my point remains – why punish the shareholders?

  5. “The charge does, admittedly, relate to events in the past”

    My god, is he really complaining about charges not being laid relating to events in the future?

  6. My god, is he really complaining about charges not being laid relating to events in the future?

    We all know that he would prosecute thoughtcrime, given half a chance.

    He probably thinks he invented the concept, too.

  7. Qatar GDP 152bn USD.
    Disputed loan c4bn USD.

    This is on par with you participating in the RBS rights issue for £1000 when at the same time you had a car loan outstanding with RBS.

  8. @ isp
    I participated in the Lloyds’ Rights issue when I had an outstanding balance on my Lloyds Bank credit card (paid off in full, monthly, by direct debit out of my current account which had a larger balance than my credit card) because Visa and Mastercard provide a guarantee against fraud – which we have invoked two or three times in the last forty years.
    *But* the allegation is that Barclays lent Qatar money *for the purpose of* investing in the Rights issue. Not quite the same.

  9. @ BlokeinWales
    He attempts to punish thoughtcrime by slandering all those who participate and banishing them from his blog.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.