简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Barclays Resolves £40M Fine Over 2008 Fundraising Disclosure Failures
Abstract:Barclays has reached a settlement with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), agreeing to pay a £40 million fine for failing to adequately disclose arrangements with Qatari investors during its critical fundraising efforts amidst the 2008 financial crisis.

Barclays has reached a settlement with the UKs Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), agreeing to pay a £40 million fine for failing to adequately disclose arrangements with Qatari investors during its critical fundraising efforts amidst the 2008 financial crisis. This agreement marks the conclusion of a protracted regulatory investigation that began in 2013.
The case revolved around undisclosed payments totalling £322 million made by Barclays to Qatari entities through two advisory agreements. These payments were directly linked to Qatari participation in the banks June and October 2008 capital raisings and effectively increased the costs associated with their involvement. The FCA highlighted that this lack of transparency deprived investors of crucial information regarding these financial arrangements.
Regulators initially proposed a £50 million penalty, but the fine was reduced after Barclays withdrew its appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The FCAs enforcement and market oversight joint executive director, Steve Smart, emphasised the gravity of the misconduct, noting its impact on investors who were not provided with all relevant details at the time. However, he acknowledged that the events occurred 16 years ago and that Barclays has since undergone significant organisational changes to improve its practices.

This regulatory resolution comes on the heels of the collapse of a separate criminal case brought by the UKs Serious Fraud Office (SFO) against Barclays and several former executives. The SFO had conducted a five-year investigation into the roles of former Chief Executive John Varley, ex-Middle East investment banking chairman Roger Jenkins, and others. However, the charges did not result in convictions.
In its official statement, Barclays confirmed that it had agreed with the FCA to withdraw its appeals against the regulator‘s findings. The bank reiterated that none of its current board members or senior management were involved in the incidents outlined in the FCA’s notices. The statement also highlighted the substantial improvements made to the banks systems and controls in the years since the 2008 fundraising efforts.
Barclays noted that while it does not accept the FCAs findings, it has chosen to conclude the matter to prioritise the interests of the bank, its shareholders, and other stakeholders. The bank had already accounted for the financial penalty in 2022, ensuring no material financial impact on its operations.
The Barclays settlement underscores the FCA‘s ongoing commitment to addressing corporate misconduct, even years after the events. It also draws comparisons to other recent regulatory actions. Earlier this year, Metro Bank faced a £16.7 million fine for significant anti-money laundering failures that left over £51 billion in transactions insufficiently monitored. Similarly, fines imposed on Starling Bank and Citigroup in 2024 highlight the FCA’s stringent approach to ensuring financial institutions uphold their regulatory obligations.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

Charles Schwab Review: Traders Claim Illegitimate Profit Cancellation, Trade Manipulation & More
Have you been lured into the Charles Schwab app for trading on the back of outrageous profit claims by the broker? Did you fail to receive any of these? Does the broker deny withdrawals every time you request and cancel your forex trading account? Have you been victimized financially by its trade manipulation? Act before you are left with a NIL balance in your account. Many traders have questioned Charles Schwab customer service and many other operational executives for the aforementioned illegitimate trading activities. In this Charles Schwab review article, we have shared some of their comments. Read on!

AMP Futures Exposed: Traders Raise Alarms Over Illegitimate Account Blocks & Bad Customer Service
Has AMP Futures blocked your forex trading account? Does it fail to provide any explanation for this act? Do you face issues concerning deposits to your AMP Futures account? Is the customer service non-existent for any trading query you raise with it? You are not alone! Many traders have been facing these issues upon AMP Futures login. Some of them have commented on AMP Futures review platforms. In this article, we have shared some reviews that you can look at. Read on!

FXGlory Review: Vanishing Profits, Capital Scams & Withdrawal Charges Keep Annoying Traders
Does FXGlory remove all your forex trading account balances upon fund withdrawal requests? Or do you witness incorrect trading account balances after fund withdrawals? Does the Saint Lucia-based forex broker charge you for fund withdrawals? All these and many more scam-related complaints have been filed against the forex broker. In this FXGlory review article, we will discuss several complaints. Read on!

PINAKINE Broker Review: A Complete Look at Its Services and Risks
Finding a trustworthy broker from the huge and often confusing world of online trading options is one of the biggest challenges a trader faces. In this competitive market, PINAKINE Liquidity Limited has appeared, getting attention with promises of high leverage and zero-commission trading. However, a closer look shows important factors that every potential client must think about before investing. The most important thing to consider with PINAKINE is that it has no regulation. This fact completely changes how risky the broker is and has major effects on how safe your investments will be. This review gives a complete and fair examination based on information available to the public. We will break down its services, trading conditions, platform technology, and the possible risks involved, helping you make a fully informed decision.

