DOJ, CFTC have Begun Investigation of 10 Major Banks for Rigging Metals Fixing

Need a job? Drop gold investigation

Posted on March 2, 2015 by Pat Heller

   

Late last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) had begun investigations of 10 major banks over the process of setting prices for gold, silver, platinum and palladium in the London market.

Look for the end result to pretty much
be a cover-up of the suppression of
gold and silver prices. – Pat Heller

The banks under scrutiny are Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Societe Generale SA, Standard Bank Group Ltd., and UBS AG. After this announcement, the Swiss competition commission, WEKO, said it was looking into possible manipulation by Swiss banks in the precious metals markets.

As reported in the Journal, the Department of Justice is looking into criminal activity, while the CFTC has opened a civil investigation.

Many researchers have written about the extensive history of central banks manipulating gold prices over the decades.  In the United States, for instance, declassified government documents released so far have all confirmed that the federal government has conspired with other governments and major banks to manipulate gold prices right from the 1930s up into the 1980s.

Historically, many government monetary systems were valued in relation to gold, so it should not surprise anyone that governments would try to influence the relative prices.  In the United States, for instance, the Treasury Department’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) was established as a provision of the January 31, 1934 Gold Reserve Act.  The ESF was explicitly authorized to use its funds to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar versus gold.  Changes over the years have never revoked the authority to manipulate gold prices.  In fact, a law enacted in 1970 directed the Secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, to “deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities.”

These new investigations follow similar reviews in Europe. Last year, the British government fined Barclays Bank more than $40 million for one incident of gold price manipulation.  Also, the Swiss regulator, FINMA, said it found “serious misconduct” among precious metals traders at UBS involving a silver-fix order of one client.

If you think that the researchers and writers claiming that central banks and major private banks were manipulating the precious metals markets by suppressing prices are finally going to be proven right, think again.

I am confident that the end result of the U.S. government investigations will be, after several years in the works, some fines collected from many of these banks for specific individual incidents. Further, there will be promises that whatever wrongdoing they had done will no longer occur.  And that will be all that happens.

Why do I think this is what will be the end result of such a bombshell development? The answer is simple. Ask yourself why the DOJ and CFTC are investigating trading in the London markets but not in the New York COMEX markets. While it is true that the London market handles more volume of precious metals trading than the COMEX, the U.S. markets are more relevant to Americans.

Also ask yourself why the investigations involve eight foreign owned banks and only two U.S. companies. The foreign banks would only be within the purview of American regulators if their actions in the London markets were perpetrated from the U.S.-based offices. Why aren’t other U.S. banks being investigated?

The reason these investigations will be pretty much whitewashed is that the Department of Justice is unwilling to go after Wall Street. New York Federal Reserve Bank president William C. Dudley (who worked at Goldman Sachs 1986-2007 as the chief U.S. economist, a partner, and as a managing director) confirmed not that long ago that the DOJ has no ongoing investigations of Wall Street firms. The DOJ is not conducting such investigations despite former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan’s public claim that there were massive illegal and criminal frauds committed by Wall Street firms.

The DOJ consistently stated that it will not prosecute these large institutions because the risk of damage to the economy, as they were told by outside experts.  However, could this DOJ policy could have more to do with the revolving doors where the DOJ and CFTC investigators largely have worked for the above named banks or hope to do so when the leave government employment?

After all, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced two years ago that no investigation of UBS’s fixing of LIBOR interest rates would be done. Holder claimed in a news conference that the lack of prosecution was based on a decision of how such an investigation would impact global financial markets. But, was the real reason that UBS was a client of the law firm where Holder worked before his current job?

Want to add some luck to your 
collection or your pocket?

In a previous decision not to investigate HSBC, a Congressional panel asked for the identity of outside parties who advised the DOJ to drop the investigation for global financial stability reasons.  Eventually, Justice officials had to admit that they did not consult any outside parties before canceling the HSBC review.

In sum, I expect the public to be lulled into thinking that the U.S. government is really finding and reporting the truth about the manipulation of precious metals prices. However, once you realize that the DOJ and CFTC are investigating the wrong market (London instead of the New York COMEX), not all of the appropriate American-based banks that should be investigated are being pursued because the government agencies have a “policy” to avoid investigations of firms where they used to work or hope to later be employed. Don’t expect any definitive revelations about the depth and breadth of the manipulation of precious metals trading in America.

Instead, look for the end result to pretty much be a cover-up of the suppression of gold and silver prices.

via numismaticnews

Ten Banks, Including JPM, Goldman, Deutsche, Barclays, SocGen And UBS, Probed For Gold Rigging

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/23/2015 22:17 -0500

No matter how many times the big banks are caught red-handed manipulating precious metals, some failed former Deutsche Bank prop-trader (you know who you are) will take a vociferous stand based on ad hominem attacks and zero facts that no, what you see in front of you is not precious metal rigging at all but a one-off event that has nothing to do with a criminal banking syndicate hell bent on taking advantage of anyone who is naive and dumb enough to still believe in fair and efficient markets. 

The last time this happened was in November when we learned that "UBS Settles Over Gold Rigging, Many More Banks To Follow", and sure enough many more banks did follow, because in Europe, where the stench of gold market manipulation stretches far beyond merely commercial banks, and rises through the central banks, namely the BOE and ECB, culminating with the Head of Foreign Exchange & Gold at the BIS itself, all such allegations have to be promptly settled or else the discovery that the manipulation cartel in Europe involves absolutely everybody will shock and stun the world, which heretofore was led to believe that such things as gold market (not to be confused with Libor or FX) manipulation only exist in the paranoid delusions of a few tinfoil fringe-blogging lunatics.

However, as usually happens, someone always fails to read the memo that when it comes to gold-market manipulation one must i) find nothing at all incriminating if one is a paid spokesman for the entities doing the manipulation such as former CFTC-sellout Bart Chilton or ii) if one can't cover it, then one must settle immediately or else the chain of revelations will implication everyone.

This time, that someone is the US Department of Justice, which as the WSJ just reported, is investigating at least 10 major banks for possible rigging of precious-metals markets. The DOJ is shockingly doing so "even though European regulators dropped a similar probe after finding no evidence of wrongdoing, according to people close to the inquiries." Of course, the reason why said probe was dropped in Europe is because it would have implicated virtually the entire trading desk at the biggest and most important European bank: Deustche Bank, as well as the biggest bank in Switzerland, UBS and UK's own Barclays, reveal a manipulation cartel rivaling even that of Libor. And once traders at the commercial banks turned sides and squealed for the prosection, well then it would be the central banks' turn next. Which is why it was imperative to bring this investigation to a quiet end.

But not in the US.

According to the WSJ, "prosecutors in the Justice Department’s antitrust division are scrutinizing the price-setting process for gold, silver, platinum and palladium in London, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has opened a civil investigation, these people said. The agencies have made initial requests for information, including a subpoena from the CFTC to HSBC Holdings PLC related to precious-metals trading, the bank said in its annual report Monday.

HSBC also said the Justice Department sought documents related to the antitrust investigation in November. The two probes “are at an early stage,” the bank added, saying it is cooperating with U.S. regulators.

Who is involved in this latest gold-rigging scandal? Why everyone! ... which makes it immediately obvious why the European regulator had to promptly cover up the whole affair. Under scrutiny are Bank of Nova Scotia , Barclays PLC, Credit Suisse Group AG , Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Société Générale SA, Standard Bank Group Ltd. and UBS AG , according to one of the people close to the investigation.

Robert Hockett, a law professor at Cornell University, said it is “not particularly surprising” that the Justice Department is plowing ahead despite the decision by European regulators.  

Recent scrutiny of big banks’ operations in the physical commodities markets and criticism of the Justice Department’s financial-crisis track record make it “quite understandable” that the agency would investigate allegations of precious metals price-rigging.

Last year, the FCA fined Barclays £26 million ($40.2 million) for lax controls after one of its traders allegedly manipulated the gold fix at the expense of a client.

Swiss regulator Finma settled last year allegations of foreign-currency manipulation with UBS. The regulator said it found “serious misconduct” among precious-metals traders at UBS, including “front running,” or trading ahead of, the silver-fix orders of one client. A spokeswoman for UBS, which said at the time that it “instituted significant cultural and compliance changes,” declined further comment.

You mean to say that the banks that were for decades rigging Libor... and FX... and bonds... and stocks... oh, and gold, were let go with a slap on the wrist and a promise to "change their ways" and not to do it again?  Yup, that's exactly right.

So what happens next? Well, we finally will find just how much of a banker-controlled muppet the so-called US attorney general truly is. Recall that a week ago he gave his subordinates 90 days to being cases against individuals for their role in the financial crisis.

Well here is the perfect opportunity.  Should Holder let this latest mass criminal ring go without any incarceration, one can officially stick a fork in the US justice system, which is meant for everyone, but the rule-flouting bankers who can clearly get away with absolutely anything.

As for the rigging in the gold market, rigging which begins with the lowliest prop-traders at Deutsche Bank and involves every single central bank and High Frequency trading outfit and is now a proven fact, we have explained over the years and thousands of times just how to end it all, so instead of wasting readers' time on this topic yet again, here are just two very simple solutions how to fix this one particular market:

So simple, even the most corrupt US Attorney General caveman can do it.

Source ZeroHedge

Rothschild may have already become the Custodian for China's Gold

We 1st published this post about a year ago, again more recently 05.11.14 - but still no mainstream financial "journalists" have dared touch it. No surprise here. Had you forgotten Hank Paulson's more 70+ trips to China when he was with Goldman Sachs setting himself to be the US Treasury Secretary?

Read December 2014 post:
ICBC: A New Global Currency & Gold Setup Is Being Conceived

Perhaps we were too quick to pass over the world gold fixing stories and manipulations recently.  Reading this banking article from the 1990s is a good lead-in for our strong suspicions that manipulations will go on as usual business in China. Then, at the appropriate time we the serfs will come to realize that Rothschild's syndicated ICBC bank is the controlling factor (custodian, central bank?) for Red China's gold.

Barclays 'may have automated currency rigging'

“…fines involved, banks co-operating”.  

                                                                                        Benjamin M. Lawsky

New York State's Supt. of Fin. Services

But, with NY DFS Zionist attorney Benjamin Lawsky heading the "investigation" you could look at the incident as a thief having a hand in the pockets of both victim and perpetrator! How can any thief beat that: authorize, or at least overlook a thief (bankster) to steal investors' savings, then assess/transfer as "fines" winnings back into the banking cartel via the government! This could only happen under a corrupt government to which the people have forgone all vigilance or caring. We suppose it beats a stick in the eye, eh.

At this rate of bank balance growth all your savings, stocks, and even your government checks such as Social Security, and pensions will be all taken from you with your government as the conduit for this unrealized wealth transfer. Not only that, but you'll have to pay off the indebtedness! Expect no mercy. Many folks have already withdrawn or suspended payments to these theft houses, and pulled their wealth back under their own in-your-hand supervision. How else can you fight back other than to halt your consumer patronage of government services?

Expect no satisfying criminal incarcerations as warranted to be tenderly meted out to subordinate underlings - with a generous remuneration attached from Barclay's.


New York's financial regulator investigates possibility of systemic foreign exchange manipulation at Barclays and Deutsche Bank

Barclays has set aside £500m for currency rigging fines to date Photo: Bloomberg News

By James Titcomb
5:50PM GMT 11 Dec 2014

Barclays and Deutsche Bank may have programmed automated trading platforms to systematically rig the currency markets, a US regulator has alleged.

New York’s Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by Benjamin Lawsky, has uncovered evidence suggesting the banks may have developed algorithms to manipulate foreign exchange markets, according to multiple reports.

The allegations are especially serious because Barclays and Deutsche Bank, among other banks, are being investigated by the DFS over the foreign exchange market.

Using algorithms in trading systems is common practice at banks, but employing them as part of an effort to profit from manipulating forex rates could suggest the problem was more widespread than a select few traders.

Neither Barclays nor Deutsche Bank were among the six banks that far paid £2.7bn to settle claims with UK, US and Swiss regulators last month.

Related Articles

 

Barclays sets aside £500m for currency rigging fine

30 Oct 2014

Banks fined £2.7bn after currency rigging investigation

12 Nov 2014

Citigroup sets aside $2.7bn as more currency rigging fines loom

09 Dec 2014

Barclays had been widely expected to settle, but pulled out at the eleventh hour after saying it wanted to pay fines to other authorities at the same time.

The DFS is believed to have raised concerns that the fines levied by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority, among others, were insubstantial. The regulator already has an internal monitor at Barclays as part of its investigation into the foreign exchange market.

Any evidence of wide-ranging currency rigging could well mean higher fines for the banks involved.

Further penalties related to foreign exchange manipulation, from the DFS as well as the US Department of Justice, are expected to be higher than the ones imposed in November.

Barclays and the DFS did not comment, while Deutsche Bank said it was co-operating with foreign exchange investigations.
via Telegraph

Silver bullion banks accused of manipulation in U.S. lawsuit

Absolutely no effective congressional oversight worthy of the name has been standing guard on these crooks. We learned years ago the banksters are in bed with the regulators and they're all raking in the booty. Common investors can take a hike. We expect nothing significant judicially to develop from this. You certainly don't require  five years to "probe the allegations." We just pass it along for your info.

https://comparesilverprices.com/

We would suggest you follow the coin dealer premiums on the 1 oz. eagles to get a general idea on the availability of silver. We are of the understanding that only 5% or so of the 5,000 oz. contracts actually receive silver as settlement. Banksters are settling for the US$ price paid in paper fiat, not bullion. A beginning start for tracking might be here.

---

​N​EW YORK Fri Jul 25, 2014 6:41pm EDT

A closed branch of Deutsche Bank is pictured in a parking a parking garage in Bochum May 17, 2013.Credit: Reuters/Ina Fassbender

(Reuters) - Silver bullion banks Deutsche Bank, Bank of Nova Scotia and HSBC have been accused of manipulating prices in the multi-billion dollar market in a lawsuit filed on Friday.

The lawsuit was filed in a New York district court by J. Scott Nicholson, a resident of Washington DC and alleges that the banks, which oversee the century-old silver fix, manipulated the physical and COMEX futures market since January 2007.

Nicholson is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which was registered in the Southern District of New York.

Deutsche Bank and HSBC declined to comment. Nova Scotia was not immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit comes after a series of separate lawsuits were filed since March, accusing gold bullion banks of rigging the daily gold price.

The five banks in those lawsuits have denied the allegations.

This is the first case to target the silver fix, although the silver market, whose prices have gyrated wildly in recent year, is no stranger to regulatory and legal scrutiny.

In a five-year probe, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission investigated allegations that some of the world's biggest bullion banks distorted silver futures prices.

The U.S. commodity regulator found no evidence of wrongdoing and dropped the probe last September. A long-running class-action antitrust lawsuit including similar accusations was dismissed at the end of last month by a federal appeals court.

The lawsuit also comes at a critical time for precious metals markets, as regulators investigate trading around the setting of London's daily gold and silver price benchmarks and the industry tries to find alternative ways to price their dealing.

​Source Reuters​

Insider says: gold price manipulation is common practice

While you may have known it since the beginning, it's significant that the media is unable to maintain the pretense of their being a  disconnect between gold-as-money and it's turning the tide against its mortal enemy - paper - upon which triumph is always achieved.

Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 8:47

Thesis: In order to safeguard its
own financial interests provide
banks the entire gold market on
its head!

Compared to the Financial Times explains a former London bullion dealers that banks repeatedly defend their own derivative positions by short-term market intervention.

The uncovered by the UK regulator FCA [Financial Conduct Authority...CV] case, the gold price manipulation by traders Barclays Bank gave the impression that there had been an individual case. 

Now, there are significant opposition from London to this hypothesis.

In Financial Times (FT) is a professional trader describes the targeted influence on the gold price-fixing in London as "routine". The banks defended regularly own gold trading positions that were inspired by the Gold Fixing, as in the case of Barclays Traders Plunkett . He speaks of self-interest, in particular when trading digital options.

"If I were in the FCA, I would see all the banks who trade digital products. This could be just the tip of the iceberg - there is a massive problem with exotic derivatives and price thresholds, "an unnamed hedge fund manager says, according to FT.

Digital options are now widespread in the precious metals sector, especially in the context of forex trading. This gold is traded under the symbol XAU as a currency. In these transactions, there is a payoff if a pre-determined price at maturity is not reached or not reached. If not, the option expires worthless.

Issuers of these betting slips have thus at maturity a large financial interest in that certain price thresholds are not met or forfeited as many options worthless.

A former precious metals trader of a large investment bank explained (anonymous) that among market participants for a long time the agreement had existed, that buyers and sellers of digital options to defend their positions when reference price and option barrier 

approach heavily shortly before maturity. Say: Let there be attempts to manipulate the reference price in the short term in their own sense. 

What responsibility do the top managers of the banks in this game? 

The ex-trader against FT: As a manager, he would expect from its dealers that they were defending the financial interests of his house.

Gold Reporter

Gold in a fix

Could the conspirators be setting up a transfer of manipulation from London to Shanghai under another Rothschild banking syndicate? Why not, the Rothschilds had been one of the London fixing members for 200 years.

---

By Alasdair Macleod

Posted 30 May 2014 

Last week the UK's Financial Conduct Authority fined Barclays for rigging the gold price at a gold fix for the disadvantage of a customer and the benefit of the bank's book. This news could not come at a worse time for the London Bullion Market and the London Gold Market Fixing Limited, the company directly responsible for the twice-daily fix. It may well lead to the end of the gold fix, the silver fix already being axed in August.

The fix is a process by which the four fixing members match their orders at an agreed price. The London bullion market is over-the-counter without the formal price records of a regulated market. The fix is therefore a needed reference price, and its status and the liquidity that follows have been central to London being the world's major bullion dealing centre.

There are two problems with the fix. The first is it potentially distorts the market by delaying pre-fix business and bringing post-fix business forward. The second is that customers have to trust the fixing banks, who are also dealing for themselves into the fix. And this is what tripped up Barclays.

Outside the fix it should be reasonably clear to clients whether a bank is operating as principal or agent. During the fix roles can become opaque, and unscrupulous dealers can find ways to game the system. 

Claims that the Barclays case was an isolated instance may be true, but indications that the FCA is treating this as a one-off and not investigating other banks may be ultimately damaging to the market's reputation. Then there are the separate circumstances of Deutsche Bank's resignation of its fixing seats on both gold and silver.

Last December Deutsche Bank was instructed by the German banking regulator, BaFin, to hand over documents in connection with its enquiry into gold and silver price fixing. Four weeks later the bank announced it was resigning its seats on the gold and silver fixes. While it is premature to positively link the resignations with BaFin's enquiry, the coincidence raises the possibility that banks which have settled with regulators over accusations of fixing LIBOR may have a case to answer in precious metals as well. Interestingly, there are no buyers for Deutsche's seats, suggesting legal and compliance officers at other bullion banks also have doubts about the fixing process.

To give this topic further context it should be noted that London has seen some unusual price movements in the past. The table below shows the profits generated by shorting one ounce of gold on the morning fix and buying it back at the afternoon fix every day for the eleven years 2000-2010, covering most of the largest bull market in the LBMA's history.

This phenomenon was first drawn to public attention a few years ago by an American analyst, Adrian Douglas. In every year this short trade would have been profitable, despite a rise in the gold price from $282.05 to $1405.50 in December 2010, a rise of 400%. This extraordinary price behaviour was confined to London trading hours.

So hard statistics tell us gold has been behaving unusually in London hours for a considerable time. The LBMA is not a regulated market, but derivatives and share prices based on precious metals are, so regulators have a duty to be interested. The FCA should broaden its investigations accordingly, but whether it does or not it is hard to see how the twice-daily gold fix can survive.

via GoldMoney

Barclays Fined For Manipulating Price Of Gold For A Decade; Sending "Bursts" Of Sell Orders

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/23/2014 06:56 -0400

It was almost inevitable: a week after we wrote "From Rothschild To Koch Industries: Meet The People Who "Fix" The Price Of Gold" and days after "Barclays' Head Of Gold Trading, And Gold "Fixer", Is Leaving The Bank", earlier today the UK Financial Conduct Authority finally formalized what most in the "tin-foil" hat community had known for years, when it announced that it fined Barclays £26 million for manipulating "the setting of the price of gold in order to avoid paying out on a client order." Furthermore, the FCA confirmed that those inexplicable gold raids which come as if out of nowhere, and slam gold with a vicious force so strong sometime they halt the entire market, had a very specific source: Barclays, whose trader Daniel James Plunkett, born 1976, "sent out a burst of orders aimed at moving the price of the yellow metal."

This took place for a decade. As the FT reports:

The FCA said Barclays had failed to "adequately manage conflicts of interest between itself and its customers as well as systems and controls failings, in relation to the gold fixing" between 2004 and 2013.

Some further details on Plunkett's preferred means of manipulating the gold price.

The FCA said Mr Plunkett had manipulated the market by placing, withdrawing and re-placing a large sell order for between 40,000 oz and 60,000 oz of gold bars.

He did this in an attempt to pull off a "mini puke", which the FCA took to mean a sharp fall in the price of gold. As a result, the bank was not obliged to make a $3.9m payment to the customer under an option contract.

Which is precisely what we have shown many times here for example in "Vicious Gold Slamdown Breaks Gold Market For 20 Seconds", when a sell order so aggressive comes in it not only takes out the entire bid stack with an intent not for "best execution" but solely to reprice the market lower. Recall from September:

There was a time when, if selling a sizable amount of a security, one tried to get the best execution price and not alert the buyers comprising the bid stack that there is (substantial) volume for sale. Of course, there was and always has been a time when one tried to manipulate prices by slamming the bid until it was fully taken out, usually just before close of trading, an illegal practice known as "banging the close." It appears that when it comes to gold, the former is long gone history, and the latter is perfectly legal. As the two charts below from Nanex demonstrate, overnight just before 3 am Eastern, a block of just 2000 GC gold futures contracts slammed the price of gold, on no news as usual, sending it lower by $10/oz. However, that is not new: such slamdowns happen every day in the gold market, and the CFTC constantly turns a blind eye. What was different about last night's slam however, is that this time whoever was doing the forced, manipulation selling, just happened to also break the market. Indeed: following the hit, the entire gold market was NASDARKed for 20 seconds after a circuit breaker halted trading!

 

To summarize: a humble block of 2000 gold futs (GC) taking out the bid stack, and slamming the price of gold, managed to halt the gold market: one of the largest "asset" markets in the world in terms of total notional, for 20 seconds.

And Mr. Plunkett in action:

To be sure Barclays was truly sorry, and pinky swears that having been caught manipulating the gold market for ten years it will never do it again:

The news is also a fresh blow to Barclays' chief executive Antony Jenkins as he tries to overhaul the culture of the London-based lender. Mr Jenkins took over 18 months ago after his predecessor, Bob Diamond, stepped down amid the Libor scandal.

Analysts said the fine reflected badly on the industry – as well as the hard-charging, revenue-focused business model that Barclays had previously been operating.

Mr Jenkins said in a statement on Friday: "We very much regret the situation that led to this settlement . . . These situations strengthen our resolve to improve." The bank discovered the misconduct after the client complained. It then reported the incident to the regulator, for which it received a 30 per cent discount on its fine for co-operation.

Ian Gordon, analyst at Investec, said that in pure financial terms, the fine was "utterly inconsequential, both in a group context, and in relation to the quantum of other conduct costs". He was referring specifically to the bank's provisions for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance and interest rate hedging products.

So a wrist slap, we get that. One wouldn't expect more - after all the banks run the show.  And yet, one wonders: is this just a case of "Fab Tourre-ing" the scandal, and redirecting all attention to just one (preferably junior) person? To be sure, this one trader made handsome profits from gold manipulation...

Mr Plunkett boosted his trading book by $1.8m at the expense of a customer, who was later compensated. He has now been banned from "performing any function in relation to any regulated activity" and fined £95,600. At the time, Barclays was one of five banks that set the price of the precious metal twice a day. Tracey McDermott, the FCA's director of enforcement and financial crime, said: "A firm's lack of controls and a trader's disregard for a customer's interests have allowed the financial services industry's reputation to be sullied again."

... but is this just an attempt by the FCA to pass this off as the proverbial "only cockroach", especially when as we reported earlier this week, none other than Barclays head of trading Marc Booker quietly left dodge?

The speculation is further heightened when one considers that Plunkett had left Barclays nearly two years ago in October 2012! According to his FCA record:

Prior to Barclays Plunkett worked as a lowly junior trader at Dresdner and RBC - and this is the a manipulation mastermind? Further, considering the FCA found failures at Barclays starting in 2004 and Plunkett only joined in 2006, can the FCA please disclose who else was the frontman for gold manipulation at Barclays in the 2004-2006 period? READ MORE…

London gold-fix banks accused of manipulation in U.S. lawsuit

LONDON Wed Mar 5, 2014 9:38am EST

via Reuters

Logos are seen outside a branch of Barclays bank in London July 30, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Toby Melville

(Reuters) - The five banks involved in setting the London benchmark gold price have been accused in a lawsuit of price manipulation, a filing with a U.S. federal court in New York showed.

Barclays Busted: Sells private account details up to 27,000 files leaked in worst breach of bank data EVER

• Cache of personal and financial details stolen and sold to rogue traders
      
• Unscrupulous dealers 'used information to pressure investors into scams'
     
•  Bank thanked Mail on Sunday for revelation and launched investigation
     
•  Barclays now face unlimited fines for not protecting customer information
     
•  Former City broker blew the whistle on the files to stop problem growing