View more on these topics

Senior banker pleads guilty to Libor fraud

A senior banker from a top UK bank has pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to conspiracy to defraud by manipulating Libor, the first criminal conviction in the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation.

The SFO is investigating 11 other individuals who are charged and awaiting trial.

Last week, Lloyds sacked eight members of staff for their part in rigging the benchmark lending rate.

The SFO began its investigation in July 2012.

Since then it has brought charges regarding Libor against Tom Hayes in June 2013; against Terry Farr and James Gilmour in July 2013; against Peter Johnson, Jonathan Mathew and Stylianos Contogoulas in March 2014; against Danny Wilkinson, Darrell Read and Colin Goodman, also in March 2014; and Vijay Merchant, Alex Julian Pabon and Ryan Michael Reich, in April 2014.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Sorry the guys just pleaded guilty to serious fraud but still we don’t see his NAME we only see Senior Banker.

    If this was an IFA or Mortgage Broker I’m sure MM would print his name and the organisation he worked for, but because it’s a bank we only have Senior Banker are they covered by different media rules?

    More importantly did the judge put in a restriction and if so does this not raise important questions about reasons why a judge could put in such a restriction after all isn’t it of public interest?

  2. Christine Brightwell 7th October 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Is it the banker formerly known as #+£=$?

  3. Of course you don’t see his name Peter, he’s a proper financial services person not an IFA (one of the few remaining post RDR), he’s POSH mate.
    Goodness me what were you thinking of?
    (tugs forelock at posh banker person)

  4. @Random Bloke – To prove a point I sat the CIIs new retail banking exam a couple of months ago. I passed it, so what excuse is there for this not being the minimum for all banking staff?

  5. Contractually anon 8th October 2014 at 8:44 am

    It’s normal practice in a number of court cases for the defendant and/or witnesses to have their names withheld whilst the trail is on going, regardless of the posh factor. If reporting restrictions are not lifted at conclusion, that would be the time getting all conspiracy-theorist.

    I fully support relevant qualifications being mandatory for more industry roles but I suspect that the retail banking exam has zero relevance for someone who’s role involved the opportunity to rig LIBOR (but I haven’t read the syllabus so I’m happy to be corrected).

  6. RB1 Retail banking and R01 both have a section on Ethics, so perhaps not appropriate for Libor rigging as they don’t want ethics getting in the way of making money. If you advise on securities you have to have R01 or equivalent, so what happens with those involved here I wonder? What were they required to have when the alleged offence was committed and what are they required to have now?

  7. Contractually anon 8th October 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Thanks for that, on that basis I agree with you it should be a requirement. I’m sure everyone’s got a view on how effective it would be.

Leave a comment