Skip to main content

Barclays challenges 50m fine.

 During the financial crisis, Barclays is challenging a £50mn fine from UK regulators over the bank’s allegedly «reckless» failure «to disclose certain arrangements» about Qatari fundraising 14 years ago. Mark Steward, head of enforcement at the Financial Conduct Authority, said yesterday that Barclays had failed to make appropriate disclosures about paying «hundreds of millions of pounds in fees to certain Qatari investors so that they would contribute new capital». Barclays, which has faced several legal cases over the Qatar fundraisings, is contesting the FCA’s decision at the regulator’s upper tribunal. The latest decision is another setback for Barclays, which has spent millions of pounds on legal fees for court battles and fines relating to its fundraising.



Barclays raised more than £11bn in emergency cash from investors during the 2008 financial crisis, helping the bank to avoid a government bailout. At the heart of the issue was whether Barclays received services for the £322mn in fees it paid Qatar or if it was an extra payment related to the share transactions hidden from the market and other investors. A $3bn loan from Barclays to the state of Qatar in November 2008 also questioned whether it was an inducement to the Qataris to invest. In 2017, the Serious Fraud Office accused Barclays and four former senior executives of conspiracy to defraud and false representation, which became the first criminal charges in the UK filed against a bank and its former bosses.

She claimed she lost out on fees because Barclays gave side payments to Qatar in the cash call. Staveley invested £3.5bn in Barclays on behalf of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, through her PCP Capital Partners, for a £30mn fee. She claims Barclays told her repeatedly that she would be given the same terms as the Qatar sovereign wealth fund.

www.sba.tax

Comments

Cloud Bookkeeping

HS2 cost cuts new routes and add delays.

 Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have begun work on «Project Sil­ver­light» sug­gest­ing the high­speed rail scheme might face four addi­tional years of delay. The planned High Speed 2 rail line faces fur­ther delays of up to four years and more cuts to the project under plans being drawn up by min­is­ters to rein in its bal­loon­ing costs. The extra delays to the coun­try’s biggest infra­struc­ture project would mean that it would not be com­pleted until as late as 2045 — 12 years after ori­gin­ally planned. «This is a func­tion of infla­tion; we are hav­ing to find huge sav­ings because the cost of everything the depart­ment is already doing will have become so much more expens­ive by then,» said one gov­ern­ment offi­cial. In Octo­ber, the FT repor­ted that the Treas­ury had asked HS2’s man­age­ment team to identify poten­tial cuts or «scope reduc­tions» to the high-speed line. Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have sub­sequently begun work on Project Sil­ver­light aimed at fi...

Small business will be excluded from fraud law.

  Min­is­ters are plan­ning to exclude small busi­nesses from anti-fraud legis­la­tion by nar­row­ing the scope of a crim­inal offence tar­get­ing com­pan­ies that fail to pre­vent eco­nomic crimes. MPs and anti-cor­rup­tion cam­paign­ers had hoped the gov­ern­ment would seek to amend the eco­nomic crime and cor­por­ate trans­par­ency bill to ensure the new offence covered all com­pan­ies. The plans to limit the scope of the amend­ments will also dis­ap­point those who had hoped the legis­la­tion would remove key hurdles to the pro­sec­u­tion of white-col­lar crime. A new «fail­ure to pre­vent» offence for fraud would bring it in line with exist­ing sim­ilar cor­por­ate offences for bribery and tax eva­sion. At present, pro­sec­utors need only prove that organ­isa­tions lacked «reas­on­able» or «adequate» con­trols to pur­sue the offence in bribery and tax eva­sion cases. «It would be much more sens­ible for the gov­ern­ment to provide strong guid­ance for SMEs on what these pro­ce...

Doubt on CS's collateral.

  Credit Suisse provided an emergency $140mn loan to Greensill Capital based partly on invoices to companies that deny ever doing the business stated on the documents. The Swiss bank provided the loan in October 2020, less than five months before the collapse of Greensill, a supply chain finance firm that counted former British prime minister David Cameron as a senior adviser. Invoices issued by metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta’s Liberty Commodities and sold to Greensill formed part of the collateral for the loan, according to documents seen by the Financial Times and people familiar with the transaction. Yet several of the parties named on the invoices have told the FT they did no business with Liberty. GFG has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Credit Suisse’s loan had a clause dictating that the collateral value had to be equal to or greater than the $140mn borrowed. The terms of the debt agreement only allowed invoices on Green-sill’s balance sheet to count towards this tally if t...