Barclays/SFO: a landmark trial clears the “Barclays Three”
“It was the only criminal case brought against UK banking executives for their actions during the financial crisis,” said Kalyeena Makortoff in The Guardian – and last week it collapsed spectacularly. Three former Barclays executives, “accused of funnelling secret fees to Qatar in exchange for emergency funding” in 2008, have been found not guilty of fraud. After a trial that lasted five months and cost the taxpayer £9-£10m, it took the jury less than six hours to throw out the case against Roger Jenkins, Tom Kalaris and Richard Boath. The verdict is a “fresh blow to the credibility of the Serious Fraud Office”.
The emergency money was crucial for Barclays, said Jane Croft and Caroline Binham in the FT. The £11.2bn raised from Qatar and other Gulf states “helped the bank avoid a taxpayer bailout”. The SFO alleged that the three defendants had “lied to the market” in official documents detailing the cash calls. But they maintained that “side deals” with Qatar, totalling £322m, “were genuine”. Rather than oiling the wheels of the bailout, they were designed to help expand Barclays’ Middle Eastern business.
“The SFO’s case was deeply flawed,” said Oliver Shah in The Sunday Times. Somehow it “failed to get evidence from the Qataris, or even to question them”. In contrast to the “RoboCop” approach habitually taken by the US Department of Justice, it seemed the “Barclays Three” were “being pursued by a village policeman on a bike”. This is the latest “in a long line of embarrassments” for the governmentfunded agency. If Britain is serious about fighting complex crime, its American boss Lisa Osofsky has some work to do. The SFO’s “humiliations” show it needs revamping and rebranding. “To do that properly, it needs a lot more money.”