Compare and contrast your article(s) to the current one who just cost Mitsubishi Bank a LOT of money. What can we learn from these cases in terms of preventing, documenting, and reconstructing fraud cases?
Compare and contrast your article to the current one who just cost Mitsubishi Bank a LOT of money
Please see article at link below:
Please read this article and then obtain another article on one of the following:
Firstly, Nick Leeson – Berings Brother Bank Fraud case
Secondly, Brian Hunter – Amaranth Fraud case
Thirdly, the London Whale Trading Fraud case
Compare and contrast your article(s) to the current one who just cost Mitsubishi Bank a LOT of money.
What can we learn from these cases in terms of preventing, documenting, and reconstructing fraud cases?
How Did Nick Leeson Contribute To The Fall of Barings Bank?
Nick Leeson is a former derivatives trader who became notorious for bankrupting Barings Bank, the United Kingdom’s oldest merchant bank, in 1995. After opening a Future and Options office in Singapore, Leeson became a rogue trader, eventually losing over $1 billion of Baring’s capital as its head of operations on the Singapore Exchange (SGX).
Nick Leeson and the Fall of Barings Banks
Leeson began his career at Barings at age 28. Initially, he was very successful in making speculative trades, which resulted in huge profits for Barings. After moving to Singapore to execute and clear transactions on the Singapore Exchange (SGX), Leeson began making unauthorized trades. At first, these risky positions made large profits for the bank: as much as £10 million, accounting for 10% of Barings’ annual profit in 1992.
On behalf of his clients, Leeson was primarily trading futures on the Nikkei 225 Stock Average, the primary index in Tokyo. Leeson should have been managing a cash neutral business. This strategy entails managing an investment portfolio without adding any capital. In Leeson’s case, if money was made or lost on the trades it would have belonged to the clients. Barings’ only compensation on the trades should have been a commission, and only a small amount of the trades were meant to be proprietary, or on behalf of the bank itself. In fact, Leeson was actually using the bank’s money to make bets on the market in an attempt to recoup his trading losses.