We use cookies to allow us and selected partners to improve your experience and our advertising. By continuing to browse you consent to our use of cookies. You can understand more and change your cookies preferences here.

Barclays fined £59.5m for market abuse

Bank also pays $360m in the US

Barclays logo

Bob Diamond, Barclays’ chief executive, has given up his bonus after the bank was fined a total of £290m for manipulating interest rates.

Total fine of £290m

Barclays has agreed to pay penalties totalling £290m following an investigation to highlight the manipulation of rates at which major banks lend to each other.

Bob Diamond and three of the banks most senior executives will not be collecting their bonuses in 2012. The Financial Services Authority (FSA) fine was £59.5m, with $200m to be paid to the Department of Justice and $160m for the Commodities and Futures Commission (CFTC) in the US.

Libor was manipulated

The investigation centred on information given by Barclays’ employees about the daily rates used for Libor and Euribor. Banks are asked about the rates that they borrow from each other in order for the BBA to be able to produce indicative rates.

Barclays has been found guilty of making submissions to the rate setting process between 2005 and 2008 that allowed the bank to make profits through traders speculating on interest rates. Furthermore, staff also put in artificially low figures between 2007 and 2009 to prevent people assuming the bank was struggling and having to borrow at high rates.

‘Well short of our standards’

Barclays’ chief executive Bob Diamond said of the investigation and subsequent fines: ‘These activities fell well short of the standards to which Barclays aspires in the conduct of its business.

‘I am sorry that some people acted in a manner not consistent with our culture and values. To reflect our collective responsibility as leaders, Chris Lucas, Jerry del Missier, Rich Ricci and I have voluntarily agreed with the Board to forgo any consideration for an annual bonus this year.’

More on this…

Back to top
Back to top