The lawsuit of the bank itself was dismissed in 2018 on the grounds that it was manifestly unfounded, even on the basis of its own account of events by the BF. It is remarkable that the SFO has prosecuted so patently for no reason. It is all the more surprising that the SFO insisted on such efforts against the executives, even though the 2018 judgment, which rejected the bank`s indictment, also referred to the corrective measures taken against the executives involved. At the time, Judge Fay said his ruling had "a clear impact" on the prosecution of the executives, which the SFO must take into account. On August 16, 2010, a district court in the District of Columbia was charged at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which Barclays was charged with violating the IEEPA and once for violating the TWEA. Barclays waived the charge, accepted the filing of the information and assumed and acknowledged responsibility for his criminal conduct. Barclays agreed to lose the funds under deferred enforcement agreements with the Department of Justice and the Attorney`s Office for the District of New York. The adjourned prosecution agreement was approved today by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. And while it is rare for banks to be prosecuted, it is even rarer for them to be convicted.
Potts believes that the success of lawsuits against companies depends on the successful conviction of at least one of the people and vice versa. If the SFO successfully prosecutes the executives for fraud, he believes that it is very likely that the bank and its holding company will also be found guilty of providing illegal financial assistance, given that it is proven that the directors are the controllers of the organizations. However, if the proceedings against the executives collapse, the likelihood of a successful conviction against the company will also collapse. While DPAs with companies theoretically leave the door open to prosecution of those involved, we have not seen the SFO take robust action against individuals or third parties as part of a DPA. Instead, the SFO seemed content to accept a DPA and simply take the fine. The standard response of the SFO increasingly appears to be to agree on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the objectives of its investigations. DPAs mean that the company is not sued.. . .