Trader jailed for three years.

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
Former Societe Generale trader Jerome Kerviel will serve three years in jail with a further two years suspended after being convicted by a Paris court.

Kerviel was told he must repay the damages of almost 5bn euros ($7bn; £4bn) the bank said it lost through his risky trades. (BBC online)
Click to expand...
If BJ's light-fingered French can deal properly with the greedy, incompetent bankers, why can't we? :mad:
 
Well I am sorry but I disagree.

The management should be up on charges as well for a total lack of control. You tell me that you let a trader blow £4bn without putting a stop to it?

And lol at asking him to repay £4bn. Yeah right. :D
 
Under Uk law, would it be possible for a Uk bank to 'sue' one of its employees in a civil case and regain some fiancial benefit if the employee was guilty of misconduct?
Not suggesting it should or will happen, just wondering if such a thing is possible.
Say a very rich employee with masses of personal wealth does something which messes up their company, can the company go after the employee for compensation?
 
stockhausen said:
If BJ's light-fingered French can deal properly with the greedy, incompetent bankers, why can't we? :mad:
Click to expand...
I don't know a lot about the financial sphere but this guy was a rogue trader, the mess the banks are in now are part of a worldwide gamble on sub prime lending. One is the fault of a reckless individual and the other a systemic oversight and gamble on risky investments.
Two different things and the latter is much trickier to put blame on individuals if everyone was doing it. Who do we blame apart from bankers in general, we can't send them all to prison.

That's my simplistic view anyway.
 
Last edited:
Col_M said:
... One is the fault of a reckless individual and the other a systemic oversight and gamble on risky investments. ...
Click to expand...
Would you not describe the latter as reckless?

As for PapaLazaru's suggestion that "The management should be up on charges as well for a total lack of control." - I couldn't agree more. Sadly, it was trebles and bonuses all round instead :mad:
 
stockhausen said:
Would you not describe the latter as reckless
Click to expand...
Depends on the information that they had available at the time, but saying that investments are always a risk, you win some you lose some, sometimes a lot of people get greedy and lose a lot, it's just capitalism :) Even if it was criminally reckless you can't put individuals on trial for global market trends when everyone is making the same decisions.

IMHO we should just learn from it and carry on, **** happens :)
 
stockhausen said:
If BJ's light-fingered French can deal properly with the greedy, incompetent bankers, why can't we? :mad:
Click to expand...

perhaps because non of that is illegal, and the bankers in this country didn't do anything wrong.

Quite fed up of the bank haters. Probably Labours best spin ever
 
stockhausen said:
If BJ's light-fingered French can deal properly with the greedy, incompetent bankers, why can't we? :mad:
Click to expand...

As much as we may like to lock up people that we don't like or do things we don't agree with there is this thing called the law that tends to get in the way. Generally, you have to break it first. Inconvenient I know...
 
Yeah heard this on radio 4, pay back 5bn euro... LOL what kind of judgement is that.

In other bank news, London is about to pay out Billions in bonus's but for the first time the taxman will take over 50% of that direct.
 
I refuse to believe that Soc Gen were unaware that he was playing around with so much money - there's no way that their risk systems should be so easily manipulated from the inside. Plus, if I remember correctly, there was a trader whom the brokers were calling Mr Dax who was buying up everything he could (this was Kerviel). There's no way that the bank wouldn't have looked at this and thought "best check that this isn't one of our guys".

Ironically I've actually spoken to Jerome Kerviel before - in my first month in the job back in 2006!
 
I don't rightly understand how anybody can order him to pay that amount back as surely he can never be able to pay it. BBC says it is a theoretical amount. So does this mean he will go the rest of his life paying all his future earnings (apart from basic money to live on) back to the bank he lost billions for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom