An Answerbank Merchandising Opportunity
ChatterBank1 min ago
So How Did It Get Rigged Then ?
17 Answers
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don’t often argue against the jury system. However, cases such as this have me wondering whether there is an argument to have such matters heard before a panel of experts.
There is the argument that laws should be framed so as to be understood by everybody so that they do not fall foul. This’s fair enough for “ordinary” offences: you don’t kill people; you don’t thump them; you don’t steal or damage their belongings; you don’t drive beyond the speed limit. But these are not ordinary offences. They are able to be committed by only a very few people who are privileged to work in a very narrow part of a fairly narrow business. The rules and laws which govern their behaviour are not straightforward. Indeed the entire business is not straightforward.
It is impossible to empanel a jury with sufficient nous to understand these matters and determine whether or not an offence has been committed. It is unfair to both the Crown and the defendant to have such a matter judged by lay people. Indeed it is unfair on the jury members expected to reach a verdict however well the advocates explain the issues to them.
There is the argument that laws should be framed so as to be understood by everybody so that they do not fall foul. This’s fair enough for “ordinary” offences: you don’t kill people; you don’t thump them; you don’t steal or damage their belongings; you don’t drive beyond the speed limit. But these are not ordinary offences. They are able to be committed by only a very few people who are privileged to work in a very narrow part of a fairly narrow business. The rules and laws which govern their behaviour are not straightforward. Indeed the entire business is not straightforward.
It is impossible to empanel a jury with sufficient nous to understand these matters and determine whether or not an offence has been committed. It is unfair to both the Crown and the defendant to have such a matter judged by lay people. Indeed it is unfair on the jury members expected to reach a verdict however well the advocates explain the issues to them.
Rigging the rate for a ruby?
I think that in itself speaks volumes, I would have thought this type of Banker would have expected a racehorse or a swimming pool, not a pint and a donner.
I do tend to agree with you NJ. Especially when you add into the mix a large chunk of the population is thick. The only problem is that to find people who do understand it, they would have to be in the same line of work and therefore may be rather over sympathetic to the defendant.
I think that in itself speaks volumes, I would have thought this type of Banker would have expected a racehorse or a swimming pool, not a pint and a donner.
I do tend to agree with you NJ. Especially when you add into the mix a large chunk of the population is thick. The only problem is that to find people who do understand it, they would have to be in the same line of work and therefore may be rather over sympathetic to the defendant.
NJ/YMB,
I don't agree.
Most jurors on any case do not know the law, and it is the job of the prosecution to explain what criminality has taken place. Perhaps the prosecution didn't understand it fully, and so were unable to convince the jury.
I find it rather pompous to immediately attribute the failure to get a prosecution on the jury being 'thick'. And it is certainly not evidence for 'professional' jurors.
You do not need to be able to drive to find someone guilty of a motoring offence, and you do not need to be a Libor genius to know if someone has broken the law regarding Libor.
I don't agree.
Most jurors on any case do not know the law, and it is the job of the prosecution to explain what criminality has taken place. Perhaps the prosecution didn't understand it fully, and so were unable to convince the jury.
I find it rather pompous to immediately attribute the failure to get a prosecution on the jury being 'thick'. And it is certainly not evidence for 'professional' jurors.
You do not need to be able to drive to find someone guilty of a motoring offence, and you do not need to be a Libor genius to know if someone has broken the law regarding Libor.
"I find it rather pompous to immediately attribute the failure to get a prosecution on the jury being 'thick'"
its not pompous its fact....
it has been mooted many before that in these type of case specifically with regard to financial matters that the judges and jurors have no real idea or grasp of the facts and how they relate to the markets and do not understand what is going on..hence the high rate of failures to secure a guilty verdict....
its not pompous its fact....
it has been mooted many before that in these type of case specifically with regard to financial matters that the judges and jurors have no real idea or grasp of the facts and how they relate to the markets and do not understand what is going on..hence the high rate of failures to secure a guilty verdict....
I don’t attribute it to them being thick, Gromit. It’s a separate argument to consider the competence of people in general to sit as jurors. There was no pomposity on my part. The jury has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt in order to convict. We’ll never know, but I strongly suspect that these twelve did not acquit because they thought the defendants were innocent but because they were not sure of their guilt – which is somewhat different. I know this can apply to any offence a jury considers. But offences of this nature are so complex that often financial experts are not sure of the law.
Yes it’s true that you don’t have to be a driver to consider guilt in a motoring offence. But the law in such matters is far more straightforward: “The speed limit is 30mph and here is evidence to prove that the driver was doing 40mph”. If jurors cannot understand what is alleged – not because they are thick but because the allegations are very technical – they can hardly be expected to judge whether a transgression has taken place and that’s what I strongly expect has happened here. It took them just 90 minutes to reach their verdicts after hearing evidence for more than three months. My belief is that they simply exclaimed “we haven’t a clue what this is all about so, since we are unsure of their guilt, as directed by the judge, we must acquit”. And I don’t see that as a very good basis for justice.
I take your point, youngmaf, that measures would have to be in place to ensure "professional" jurors do not acquit on the basis of "We were mates when we both worked at Megabank" or "That could easily be me standing up there". But I think they would be more easily overcome than the problem of lay jurors sitting on complex financial cases which they have not a hope of understanding.
Yes it’s true that you don’t have to be a driver to consider guilt in a motoring offence. But the law in such matters is far more straightforward: “The speed limit is 30mph and here is evidence to prove that the driver was doing 40mph”. If jurors cannot understand what is alleged – not because they are thick but because the allegations are very technical – they can hardly be expected to judge whether a transgression has taken place and that’s what I strongly expect has happened here. It took them just 90 minutes to reach their verdicts after hearing evidence for more than three months. My belief is that they simply exclaimed “we haven’t a clue what this is all about so, since we are unsure of their guilt, as directed by the judge, we must acquit”. And I don’t see that as a very good basis for justice.
I take your point, youngmaf, that measures would have to be in place to ensure "professional" jurors do not acquit on the basis of "We were mates when we both worked at Megabank" or "That could easily be me standing up there". But I think they would be more easily overcome than the problem of lay jurors sitting on complex financial cases which they have not a hope of understanding.
There is no evience that the jury or judge didn't understand the charge. No one, in all the reports has blamed the jury.
The only man convicted of Libor rigging was found guilty largely because the jury believed emails and instant messages where he colluded with others to manipulate the rate.
It is odd that he was convicted, but these others who he conversed with have not been convicted. But this case had different prosecution lawyers. Perhaps they were useless.
The only man convicted of Libor rigging was found guilty largely because the jury believed emails and instant messages where he colluded with others to manipulate the rate.
It is odd that he was convicted, but these others who he conversed with have not been convicted. But this case had different prosecution lawyers. Perhaps they were useless.
Gromit - //It is odd that he was convicted, but these others who he conversed with have not been convicted. //
Having a conversation by e-mail will not, in pricnciple, get you convicted - but what you say might.
It is probably a difference in content that resulted in a conviction for one of the individuals, and not the other.
Knowing something to be true is one thing - proving it in a court of law is another.
Having a conversation by e-mail will not, in pricnciple, get you convicted - but what you say might.
It is probably a difference in content that resulted in a conviction for one of the individuals, and not the other.
Knowing something to be true is one thing - proving it in a court of law is another.
“…where is the line drawn in terms of jury trial….”
I don’t know Andy because like most people I have little understanding of these things. Many such matters do not progress to a criminal court at all and instead are heard by the Financial Conduct Authority, who can impose fines and disqualify people from the business. Perhaps there is some mileage in going down that road a bit further, though I would not advocate such a tribunal having the power to record criminal convictions or to impose any penalties other than fines. Perhaps if the FCA feel such a penalty is necessary they can remit the matter to a criminal court with expert jurors.
It’s a complex issue but one Ithink deserves some consideration.
I didn’t know that any of the six had been convicted (though I could be wrong). What I read said that five had been cleared of all charges and the jury was still deliberating on a sixth. A few minutes ago it was reported that he too had been cleared. . And I made an error in my earlier post, the jury had deliberated for a day and a half, not an hour and a half, so apologies for that.
I don’t know Andy because like most people I have little understanding of these things. Many such matters do not progress to a criminal court at all and instead are heard by the Financial Conduct Authority, who can impose fines and disqualify people from the business. Perhaps there is some mileage in going down that road a bit further, though I would not advocate such a tribunal having the power to record criminal convictions or to impose any penalties other than fines. Perhaps if the FCA feel such a penalty is necessary they can remit the matter to a criminal court with expert jurors.
It’s a complex issue but one Ithink deserves some consideration.
I didn’t know that any of the six had been convicted (though I could be wrong). What I read said that five had been cleared of all charges and the jury was still deliberating on a sixth. A few minutes ago it was reported that he too had been cleared. . And I made an error in my earlier post, the jury had deliberated for a day and a half, not an hour and a half, so apologies for that.
NJ didnt say jurers being thick doesnt help - I did. And I stand by it especially for more complex cases.
//The only man convicted of Libor rigging was found guilty largely because the jury believed emails and instant messages where he colluded with others to manipulate the rate. //
Well as these guys have been found not guilty of conspiracy then I guess the guy convicted will be on for an appeal as it is rather difficult to conspire with ones self!
//The only man convicted of Libor rigging was found guilty largely because the jury believed emails and instant messages where he colluded with others to manipulate the rate. //
Well as these guys have been found not guilty of conspiracy then I guess the guy convicted will be on for an appeal as it is rather difficult to conspire with ones self!
Ymb
He has already appealed and had it rejected, though he did get a few years shaved off the original sentence.
Tom Hayes, the man convicted, originally cooperated with the Serious Fraud Office and more or less confessed to all charges being true. However, by the time of his trial he was convinced he was being scapegoated and stopped cooperating.
The exonerated six, protested their innocence from the start and dos not admit anything. From there, it was hard to prove they acted or gained from manipulating Lubor.
He has already appealed and had it rejected, though he did get a few years shaved off the original sentence.
Tom Hayes, the man convicted, originally cooperated with the Serious Fraud Office and more or less confessed to all charges being true. However, by the time of his trial he was convinced he was being scapegoated and stopped cooperating.
The exonerated six, protested their innocence from the start and dos not admit anything. From there, it was hard to prove they acted or gained from manipulating Lubor.
1 to 17 of 17
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.