Anonymity for alleged conspirators in Libor indictment

James made this Freedom of Information request to Serious Fraud Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Serious Fraud Office,

Please can you tell me for what reason the SFO has asked many of the individuals who have been indicted in relation to the Libor scandal to apply to the court to remain anonymous.

Yours faithfully,
James Harvey.

Information Officer, Serious Fraud Office

Dear Mr Harvey

Thank you for your email of 18 October 2013. This email is just to confirm receipt and to let you know that we aim to respond to you by 15 November 2013.

Kind regards

The Information Officer

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Joel Benjamin anodiad ()

Look forward to reading this response. In whose interests are the SFO acting in suppressing the details of fraudulent financiers from the public realm?

This WSJ article is scathing:

"In some cases, the British agency has ignored or dismissed repeated overtures from former London-based traders who have offered to cooperate in the Libor case, their lawyers say.

An SFO spokeswoman declined to comment." http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...

Information Officer, Serious Fraud Office

Dear Mr Harvey,

Thank you for your email of 18 October in which you asked “Please can you tell me for what reason the SFO has asked many of the individuals who have been indicted in relation to the Libor scandal to apply to the court to remain anonymous”.

I hope it will help if I explain that it is not the case that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has asked any indicted individual in this case to apply to the court to remain anonymous. There are at present three indicted individuals whose names are all in the public domain.

There are a number of other individuals who were named by the SFO as being people with whom the indicted individuals conspired. As a matter of fairness and courtesy, each of those unindicted individuals was informed before a Plea and Case Management Hearing on 21 October (“PCMH”) that their names may be made public at that hearing. Following representations from a number of those individuals and/or their legal representatives, they were informed a week before the PCMH that the SFO would be inviting the Judge to consider whether to make an order imposing reporting restrictions. In addition, they were reminded that they were entitled to apply to the Court for reporting restrictions and were informed that the SFO apprehended that representatives of the media might make representations in that regard. These matters were set out in open court at the PCMH at which time the SFO reiterated that it was adopting a neutral position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you are unhappy with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original email and should be addressed to: [SFO request email].

Please quote the reference number 2013-118 in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

David Burke
Serious Fraud Office

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir