As our earlier article explains, the deviation for some of the other banks reporting their LIBOR interest figures were worse those of Barclays. Robert Diamond, the former CEO of Barclays, has been making that point too.

His response is a little petulant: the others were also naughty, so why are we being punished?

Perhaps because in Barclays’ case there’s irrefutable proof.

But he does have a point. What is being done about the other banks?

The conversation between Mr Diamond and Paul Tucker of the Bank of England on October 29, 2008 that Barclays figures were higher than the others also raises some questions. Manipulation of LIBOR was already an issue after the Wall Street Journal published it’s proof in May 2008.

In that context, it seems improbable that Tucker’s query about the higher rates would be an attempt to induce the manipulation of LIBOR.

So far we don’t have the notes from the conversation between Mr Diamond and Jerry Del Missier, the former Barclays executive who took Tucker’s question as an instruction to manipulate the LIBOR figures.

Perhaps they don’t exist – anymore.

More at:
Diamond Says Rivals Lowballed Libor, Blames Regulatory Inaction
Barclays: MPs query Bob Diamond evidence
Did bank greed cause the crash?
Banksters