DOJ ratchets up pressure on UBS over Libor scandal

The US Justice Department is considering scrapping a 2012 agreement to not prosecute UBS for allegedly manipulating Libor in the latest sign that US authorities are ratcheting up pressure on global banks.

UBS had agreed in 2012 to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve allegations it rigged the benchmark rate, saving it from a guilty plea if the Swiss bank avoided other alleged wrongdoing for two years. The deal was recently extended for an additional year to the end of 2015.

But now that settlement is under threat as part of the wide-ranging probe of potential manipulation of foreign exchange markets, which the DoJ is hoping to resolve with UBS and four other banks as soon as next week.

The threat of scrapping the 2012 NPA for the Libor settlement is particularly sensitive for UBS because the Swiss bank was the first financial institution to alert US authorities about the potential manipulation of forex markets.

UBS had expected to receive credit for the proactive move, since the DoJ has been emphasising that firms that notify authorities for alleged wrongdoing would be rewarded.

In the forex probe, UBS received immunity from antitrust prosecution. But as the probe widened into the investigation of whether banks adequately disclosed information to clients and counterparties, among other practices, the case expanded into a possible fraud investigation.

Fraud charges aren't covered in the antitrust immunity protection, and UBS was set to plead guilty to such allegations. But the possibility of scrapping the Libor NPA was only brought up recently and signals the latest move by the DoJ to be tougher on Wall Steet.

Bloomberg first reported that the NPA could be torn up.

DoJ officials have been taking a harder line on NPAs and deferred prosecution agreements, saying they could be scrapped if the terms are violated.

"Let me be clear: the criminal division will not hesitate to tear up a DPA or NPA and file criminal charges, where such action is appropriate and proportional to the breach," assistant attorney-general Leslie Caldwell said in a speech in April.

But she also noted that DPAs or NPAs can frequently accomplish more objectives than can be secured from a criminal conviction. Banks under a DPA or NPA often have to co-operate with ongoing investigations, including probes of individuals, and independent monitors are usually installed as part of such deals.

Still, several lawmakers have criticised such agreements, including Senator Elizabeth Warren. In a speech last month, Ms Warren said DPAs and NPAs amount to a "get out of jail free" card, and said no group should be able to get such a deal if they are already operating under a similar agreement for a past offence.

© The Financial Times Limited 2015. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation