- A deal may be close to the line but still on the right side of it (R v Jenkins & Ors)
- What is the background to the trial in this case and what, briefly, was the outcome?
- What were the particular challenges that the prosecution had to (and therefore failed to) overcome to bring home this prosecution?
- How were gaps in the prosecution case theory exposed in the course of the trial?
- What are the learning points practitioners on both sides can take away from this trial?
Corporate Crime analysis: In 2008, at the heart of the banking crisis, Barclays Bank negotiated a £322m investment from Qatar Holding LLC. The money saved the bank from being nationalised. The terms under which the deal was done however landed the bank, its CEO and three of its senior personnel in court on fraud charges. Twelve years, two applications to dismiss, two trials, two appeals and a jury deliberation of under six hours later, everyone, including the bank, was acquitted. Should the bank have accepted the money? Should the SFO have prosecuted? This analysis focuses on the deal that was too close to the line for comfort and on a prosecution that failed to understand that a deal close to the line is still on the right side of it. Written by Ian Winter QC, Cloth Fair Chambers, counsel for Thomas Kalaris.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial