1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,599
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. Speaking to a

6
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,239
Speaker 1: group of governors at the White House earlier this year,

7
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:29,080
Speaker 1: President Trump gave an update on docca's legal status and

8
00:00:29,080 --> 00:00:32,720
Speaker 1: the administration's plan to scrap it. DOCCA is going to

9
00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:35,240
Speaker 1: be put back into the Ninth Second. You know, we

10
00:00:35,360 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: tried to get it moved quickly because we'd like to

11
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:39,879
Speaker 1: help doc I think everybody in this room wants to

12
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:43,280
Speaker 1: help with DOCCA. But the Supreme Court just ruled that

13
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:45,279
Speaker 1: it has to go through the normal channel. So it's

14
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:50,040
Speaker 1: going back in and there won't be any surprise. The

15
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:53,920
Speaker 1: surprise maybe how things have changed. The President's patients is

16
00:00:53,960 --> 00:00:56,560
Speaker 1: wearing thin, and he's now threatening that if the Ninth

17
00:00:56,600 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 1: Circuit doesn't hand down a decision by the end of

18
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 1: the month, he'll over the Supreme Court again, this time

19
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:06,840
Speaker 1: with its newly formed Conservative majority. Joining me is Leon Fresco,

20
00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 1: a partnered Hollandon Knight and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General

21
00:01:10,280 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: for the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation Leon. It

22
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:17,760
Speaker 1: is often frustrating for litigants to wait and wait for

23
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: a decision in any case. But how unusual is it

24
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: for the administration to write a letter to an appeals

25
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:29,800
Speaker 1: court warning the judges to issue a decision or else. Well,

26
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:33,760
Speaker 1: it is extremely unusual. It happens maybe once every few years.

27
00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:37,480
Speaker 1: The last time I remember this happening was the Texas

28
00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:40,960
Speaker 1: litigation when the President Obama at that time wanted to

29
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,039
Speaker 1: do the deferred action for the parents of the U.

30
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:46,640
Speaker 1: S citizens, and that case was being held up by

31
00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:50,680
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit, and a similar concept was was employed,

32
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:53,320
Speaker 1: which is to tell the lower court, Hey, the Supreme

33
00:01:53,320 --> 00:01:56,760
Speaker 1: Court term is from October to June, and if you

34
00:01:56,800 --> 00:01:59,280
Speaker 1: don't let us get an argument soon, then we'll have

35
00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:02,360
Speaker 1: to wait till October to start again in order to

36
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:04,360
Speaker 1: get a decision in June. And so that's why they

37
00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:07,120
Speaker 1: they have this sense of urgency here. So the Ninth

38
00:02:07,120 --> 00:02:11,280
Speaker 1: Circuit has ruled against Trump on the travel band, sanctuary cities,

39
00:02:11,320 --> 00:02:15,680
Speaker 1: and its proposed ban on transgender soldiers in the military.

40
00:02:15,840 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 1: Is the government anticipating that the Ninth Circuit is going

41
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:21,320
Speaker 1: to rule against it on doctor. Is that why it's

42
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 1: so concerned about getting the case to the Supreme Court? Yes? Correct.

43
00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:27,720
Speaker 1: They they believe that based on the way the oral

44
00:02:27,800 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 1: argument when and based on past immigration decisions from the

45
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:34,880
Speaker 1: judges on that three judge panel that that that the

46
00:02:35,160 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 1: doctor claims uh did the doctor case, that they believe

47
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:40,400
Speaker 1: that there's no doubt that that case is going to

48
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:42,519
Speaker 1: go against the government, and so they want to move

49
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:44,400
Speaker 1: it to a court where they view they have a

50
00:02:44,440 --> 00:02:47,960
Speaker 1: more likely favorable outcome here and also to sort of

51
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:51,000
Speaker 1: get this DOCTA issue within the court to resolve so

52
00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:55,119
Speaker 1: that they can return it back to Congress. Let's why

53
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:58,240
Speaker 1: don't you explain, because there has been so many ups

54
00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:01,040
Speaker 1: and downs and so many court here rings, where the

55
00:03:01,120 --> 00:03:04,880
Speaker 1: doctor program stands right now in the court. Sure, sure,

56
00:03:04,960 --> 00:03:07,799
Speaker 1: the DOCTA program continues to exist pretty much the same

57
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:11,239
Speaker 1: way President Obama created it, except no new people can

58
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:14,079
Speaker 1: enter DOCTA. But if you have DOCTA status, you can

59
00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:17,640
Speaker 1: keep renewing it. And so what happened is when the

60
00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 1: President tried to end DOCCA, all the courts except for

61
00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: one court has said that the ability to end DOCCA

62
00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:27,600
Speaker 1: is limited by the fact that you have to give

63
00:03:27,639 --> 00:03:31,680
Speaker 1: a reason that is justifiable under the law, and every

64
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:34,480
Speaker 1: one of the courts has disagreed with the Attorney general

65
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 1: sessions reason, which is that he believes DOCCA is illegal.

66
00:03:38,240 --> 00:03:41,520
Speaker 1: And so this has kind of created this this difficult

67
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:45,880
Speaker 1: you know, legal not that has to be untied where

68
00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: the courts are ultimately going to have to come down

69
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:51,000
Speaker 1: to make a decision is DOCTA legal or is it not?

70
00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:54,760
Speaker 1: And if even if it is legal or illegal, the

71
00:03:54,840 --> 00:03:57,880
Speaker 1: question is what does that mean moving forward for the program?

72
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 1: And so that's what has to be this ite by

73
00:04:00,360 --> 00:04:02,720
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court anyway, at some point, whether it's this

74
00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:06,760
Speaker 1: year or next year. What is the administrations? Why is

75
00:04:06,760 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 1: the administration expressing a sense of urgency here when this

76
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:14,160
Speaker 1: program has been in place for so many years? What's

77
00:04:14,200 --> 00:04:18,120
Speaker 1: the urgency As a judicial matter, It's very hard to

78
00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:21,119
Speaker 1: show any urgency because, for exactly the reason you said,

79
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:24,080
Speaker 1: people have had this status for many years now. We

80
00:04:24,160 --> 00:04:27,760
Speaker 1: have record low unemployment, we have record high job opening.

81
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:30,839
Speaker 1: So clearly there's not an economic impact that's negative here.

82
00:04:31,200 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: So from all of those standpoints, I think you're correct.

83
00:04:34,000 --> 00:04:37,599
Speaker 1: The urgency is more on the political front. Which is

84
00:04:37,640 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: that the President understands that this data issue is critical

85
00:04:41,120 --> 00:04:44,159
Speaker 1: toward trying to get a global solution for funding his

86
00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:48,040
Speaker 1: other immigration priorities such as the wall and other reductions

87
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:51,440
Speaker 1: and legal immigration, and so he realizes that as long

88
00:04:51,480 --> 00:04:53,760
Speaker 1: as this is in the courts, the Congress won't make

89
00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:58,160
Speaker 1: a deal on this data issue. Some little annelists are

90
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:01,120
Speaker 1: saying that the Trump administration she wants to get this

91
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:06,000
Speaker 1: is Supreme Court now, especially because Justice Brett Kavanaugh can

92
00:05:06,040 --> 00:05:09,640
Speaker 1: provide the fifth vote to unwind the program. What's your

93
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:14,920
Speaker 1: take on his approach to immigration law. Well, I do

94
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,559
Speaker 1: think that the timing of the letter is timed around

95
00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:21,720
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh's arrival at the Supreme Court, given that when

96
00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:23,680
Speaker 1: there was four to four, it made no sense for

97
00:05:23,720 --> 00:05:25,800
Speaker 1: the case to get to the Supreme Court. Now that

98
00:05:25,839 --> 00:05:29,239
Speaker 1: it's five to four with five conservative justices, it makes

99
00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:32,000
Speaker 1: more sense for the Trump administration to want the case

100
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,760
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. I do believe Justice Kavanaugh, pretty

101
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:38,520
Speaker 1: much on everything I've seen him do in terms of immigration,

102
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:41,719
Speaker 1: is going to find that the DOCTA program is not

103
00:05:41,839 --> 00:05:45,719
Speaker 1: authorized by statutes. And so if the justification for DACCA

104
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:50,240
Speaker 1: is that it's a completely prosecutorial discretion program. Then the

105
00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 1: same discretion that President Obama had the instituted means that

106
00:05:54,120 --> 00:05:57,240
Speaker 1: Trump has the same discretion to eliminate it without giving

107
00:05:57,279 --> 00:05:59,880
Speaker 1: any reason of any kind. That's where I think his

108
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:02,640
Speaker 1: position is going to come down. And I think, you know,

109
00:06:02,760 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 1: they'll probably have all five of the justices that are

110
00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:09,239
Speaker 1: conservative to sign on to that position. So what would

111
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:14,599
Speaker 1: happen to the roughly seven thousand Dreamers if if, if

112
00:06:14,640 --> 00:06:19,000
Speaker 1: the Trump administration wins at the Supreme Court, Well, then

113
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 1: I think that's a question that is for the administration

114
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,680
Speaker 1: to decide whether they would let the permits laps organically.

115
00:06:26,920 --> 00:06:29,440
Speaker 1: You know what, because each each dock a recipient has

116
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 1: a work permit that expires at a specific time or

117
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:36,039
Speaker 1: whether they yank them all at one time. In the past,

118
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: they said they let them expire organically, so I think

119
00:06:38,800 --> 00:06:41,640
Speaker 1: they would continue that position. And so what would happen

120
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:45,640
Speaker 1: is that each doctor recipients work permit expired, that would

121
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:48,120
Speaker 1: be the end of their NCA status. They just wouldn't

122
00:06:48,120 --> 00:06:51,800
Speaker 1: be able to renew it again. So leon how would

123
00:06:51,839 --> 00:06:54,720
Speaker 1: the justice Let's suppose the Ninth Circuit doesn't rule and

124
00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:57,320
Speaker 1: the Trump administration wants to appeal this to the Supreme

125
00:06:57,360 --> 00:07:00,560
Speaker 1: Court without the Ninth Circuit, what would the grounds be

126
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: and what legal vehicle When the Court has said basically

127
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:07,240
Speaker 1: that you know, you have to go to the normal process,

128
00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:10,680
Speaker 1: go to the Ninth Circuit, then it comes up to us. Well,

129
00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:13,960
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court did say that they expected in that decision.

130
00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: They said they expected that the Ninth Circuit would move

131
00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,120
Speaker 1: in a timely or for I forget the exact wording,

132
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 1: but timely or efficient manner. And so it would just

133
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:24,760
Speaker 1: be whether the Supreme Court pop of the Ninth Circuit

134
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 1: was not moving in a timely or efficient manner. The

135
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:31,000
Speaker 1: normal Ninth Circuit case takes about a year from beginning

136
00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:34,560
Speaker 1: to end to resolve, so we're certainly not there within

137
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:37,240
Speaker 1: the normal case. Now there could be an argument, well,

138
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:41,320
Speaker 1: they should be processing this faster than the normal case. Uh.

139
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:44,520
Speaker 1: And also you know they really have until January. It's

140
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:48,040
Speaker 1: not October. January is really the deadline to get the

141
00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:50,840
Speaker 1: case decided in this Supreme Court term, meaning that a

142
00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:53,760
Speaker 1: decision would be entered by this June rather than by

143
00:07:53,840 --> 00:07:56,400
Speaker 1: next June. And so I do think at the end

144
00:07:56,440 --> 00:07:58,440
Speaker 1: of the day, after all of this bluster, there will

145
00:07:58,520 --> 00:08:02,000
Speaker 1: be a Ninth Circuit decision or to January, which means

146
00:08:02,000 --> 00:08:04,760
Speaker 1: there will be a Supreme Court decision this year. All right,

147
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:08,280
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco. He's a partner

148
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:17,480
Speaker 1: with Hollanden Knight. We're alive from the Bloomberg Interactive Broker Studio.

149
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:21,480
Speaker 1: Three British currency traders are defending themselves in a New

150
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 1: York courtroom against charges that they're so called cartel rigged

151
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:29,400
Speaker 1: the five point one trillion dollar a day currency market,

152
00:08:29,840 --> 00:08:33,800
Speaker 1: joining me is landon when Bloomberg News ex reporter so

153
00:08:34,000 --> 00:08:37,079
Speaker 1: tell us about the chats and phone calls what seems

154
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: like some really colorful prosecution evidence. Yes, it certainly is

155
00:08:41,600 --> 00:08:45,400
Speaker 1: colorful evidence. The prosecution have presented chats from these traders

156
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 1: who clearly knew that each other very well. Um, they

157
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:50,520
Speaker 1: joke around with each other. They say, you know, I

158
00:08:50,559 --> 00:08:52,880
Speaker 1: owe it all to you to each other when trades

159
00:08:52,960 --> 00:08:55,160
Speaker 1: go well, and um we even have one joke from

160
00:08:55,160 --> 00:08:58,120
Speaker 1: a trader who says, for compliance purpose, no collusion going

161
00:08:58,160 --> 00:09:01,320
Speaker 1: on here, ha ha ha. So obviously this is not

162
00:09:01,480 --> 00:09:04,080
Speaker 1: really looking great from a sort of you know, just

163
00:09:04,160 --> 00:09:07,640
Speaker 1: a lingo perspective. But it's whether the prosecution will be

164
00:09:07,679 --> 00:09:10,599
Speaker 1: able to prove that that actually means the traders colluded

165
00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:13,719
Speaker 1: and you know, caused the market to be unfair. Is

166
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:17,000
Speaker 1: is another point? Well, how is the defense besides that,

167
00:09:17,040 --> 00:09:20,720
Speaker 1: going to counter this evidence that seems to be spelling

168
00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:24,000
Speaker 1: out the prosecution's case. Well, what the defense is trying

169
00:09:24,040 --> 00:09:26,679
Speaker 1: to say is that the traders all did this as

170
00:09:26,720 --> 00:09:29,439
Speaker 1: a standard practice. They were all talking to multiple people

171
00:09:29,440 --> 00:09:32,120
Speaker 1: in chat rooms all the time to get information, to

172
00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 1: understand what was going on in the markets and to

173
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:36,000
Speaker 1: be able to sort of use that as an edge

174
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:38,400
Speaker 1: in their trading. And what's interesting also is that the

175
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:41,200
Speaker 1: defense has pointed to the fact that sometimes the traders

176
00:09:41,280 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 1: said one thing in the chat and then did another

177
00:09:43,440 --> 00:09:45,840
Speaker 1: thing in their trading logs. Um. So it's more like

178
00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:48,320
Speaker 1: a game of poker, is what the defense are trying

179
00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: to claim here. Now, the prosecution star witness was a

180
00:09:52,200 --> 00:09:55,560
Speaker 1: member of the group that the prosecution flipped. He's on

181
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:58,440
Speaker 1: the stand now, how is he doing and he actually

182
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:01,160
Speaker 1: just left the stand earlier to but what he has

183
00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:04,439
Speaker 1: been doing has been very measured. He's very calm. Um

184
00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:06,160
Speaker 1: that all the traders are British and so you know

185
00:10:06,240 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: they present, um, you know, in a very calm British way, um,

186
00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:12,720
Speaker 1: and uh, he basically laid out his reasoning um for

187
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:15,280
Speaker 1: being in me chat room for you know, trying to

188
00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:19,040
Speaker 1: gain advantage, helping out other traders and trying to to

189
00:10:19,240 --> 00:10:21,720
Speaker 1: basically team up with them in order to get the

190
00:10:21,720 --> 00:10:23,679
Speaker 1: outcomes that they want to move the prices in the

191
00:10:23,679 --> 00:10:27,080
Speaker 1: direction that they wanted to. On cross examination, was the

192
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:31,319
Speaker 1: defense able to establish any parts of its case with

193
00:10:31,360 --> 00:10:35,040
Speaker 1: this witness. I think the defense was able to say, look,

194
00:10:35,240 --> 00:10:37,920
Speaker 1: these you you all had this information from each other

195
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:40,280
Speaker 1: as well as other participants in the markets. Did you

196
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:44,280
Speaker 1: act independently? Um? The defense really did hammer home that point.

197
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:46,240
Speaker 1: Even though the traders knew all of this stuff that

198
00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:47,920
Speaker 1: was going on in the markets, when it came to

199
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:50,120
Speaker 1: the end of the day, they would sit at their

200
00:10:50,120 --> 00:10:52,679
Speaker 1: desk and punch in their own numbers and trade independently

201
00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:55,240
Speaker 1: of each other. So that's really a strong point that

202
00:10:55,240 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 1: the defense is trying to make right now that they're

203
00:10:57,320 --> 00:10:59,880
Speaker 1: all they all made no similar information, but they're all

204
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:03,440
Speaker 1: acting independently and maybe in parallel, but you know, it's

205
00:11:03,520 --> 00:11:06,800
Speaker 1: it's coincidental. All the markets were sharing information and uh,

206
00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:10,760
Speaker 1: you know, there isn't any specific antitrust collusion. Here on

207
00:11:10,880 --> 00:11:14,360
Speaker 1: cross examination, the defense was able to get into evidence

208
00:11:14,440 --> 00:11:18,240
Speaker 1: that the UK Serious Fraud Office had dropped the charges

209
00:11:18,360 --> 00:11:22,760
Speaker 1: against these three. Why did the judge allow that, you know,

210
00:11:22,840 --> 00:11:27,040
Speaker 1: information from another jurisdiction into this case. I think it

211
00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 1: probably the judge allowed that because this is going to

212
00:11:29,720 --> 00:11:33,400
Speaker 1: become a factor in both cases, both the arguments from

213
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:36,439
Speaker 1: both sides. The defense is trying to say, look, these

214
00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:39,320
Speaker 1: are British traders, um you know that the the US

215
00:11:39,400 --> 00:11:42,320
Speaker 1: doesn't have scope to prosecute them. And actually one of

216
00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:45,000
Speaker 1: the witnesses for the government today was trying to make

217
00:11:45,000 --> 00:11:48,840
Speaker 1: the point that a lot of these trades affected US entities.

218
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:52,280
Speaker 1: So they gave examples of the amounts, the dollar amounts,

219
00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:54,680
Speaker 1: and the number of counterparties that were trading in the

220
00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:57,000
Speaker 1: US that may have been affected by these trades. So

221
00:11:57,240 --> 00:11:59,720
Speaker 1: it's going to be become a battleground whether this is

222
00:11:59,720 --> 00:12:02,960
Speaker 1: real into US or whether these British traders should have,

223
00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:06,360
Speaker 1: you know, stayed in the UK. In your story you

224
00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:10,760
Speaker 1: talk about how they almost knew at one point that

225
00:12:10,840 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: they were being watched, but they kept ongoing. So in

226
00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:17,160
Speaker 1: two twelve we have the Lieborar scandal that starts to

227
00:12:17,160 --> 00:12:19,640
Speaker 1: become reported in the press in the UK, and so

228
00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:22,760
Speaker 1: these traders start to think, well, is there any commonality

229
00:12:22,800 --> 00:12:25,160
Speaker 1: with what's happening in liborar versus what they're doing in

230
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,199
Speaker 1: their own chat rooms. But it clearly hasn't dawned on them. Um,

231
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:30,800
Speaker 1: you know that that the government might find these two

232
00:12:30,800 --> 00:12:32,960
Speaker 1: situations very similar. So they actually do make a couple

233
00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:37,439
Speaker 1: of jokes about that how much is the government on

234
00:12:37,440 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 1: online here as far as it has just prove its

235
00:12:40,559 --> 00:12:44,520
Speaker 1: case or you know what repercussions if it's not able

236
00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:47,080
Speaker 1: to make this case. Well, I think this is a

237
00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:51,320
Speaker 1: very critical case. Obviously, the foreign exchange industry has gone

238
00:12:51,360 --> 00:12:53,760
Speaker 1: through a lot of soul searching and huge, huge amount

239
00:12:53,800 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 1: of penalties and fines um about fourteen billion dollars all

240
00:12:57,679 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 1: told for all the global banks who were wrapped up

241
00:12:59,880 --> 00:13:03,240
Speaker 1: in this um benchmark scandal and foreign exchange. So I

242
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,960
Speaker 1: think one only one person in foreign exchange, an individual trader,

243
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:10,480
Speaker 1: has been convicted of fraud prior prior to this case.

244
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:13,160
Speaker 1: So I think it is very very important bell weather

245
00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:16,760
Speaker 1: for whether they are going to become more individual prosecutions

246
00:13:16,760 --> 00:13:20,160
Speaker 1: as a result of this scandal. Has has the crackdown

247
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 1: and the scandal helped to clean up the industry. I

248
00:13:23,760 --> 00:13:26,079
Speaker 1: think the industry has changed a lot. A lot of

249
00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:27,920
Speaker 1: the people that I speak to actually feel like they're

250
00:13:27,960 --> 00:13:30,720
Speaker 1: being watched by Big Brother all the time, and they're

251
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:33,440
Speaker 1: they've really really cleaned up in terms of the language

252
00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:37,120
Speaker 1: they use, being more careful about sort of professionalism and

253
00:13:37,320 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 1: conduct in general and anything that might signal to their

254
00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:43,200
Speaker 1: compliance department that they're even just being a little bit naughty.

255
00:13:43,400 --> 00:13:45,679
Speaker 1: And obviously naughtiness is not the same thing as as

256
00:13:45,679 --> 00:13:48,960
Speaker 1: committing crimes, but there there is definitely an awareness in

257
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:52,120
Speaker 1: this market that the the actions and these settlements that

258
00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:55,600
Speaker 1: occurred before are no longer acceptable, and um so they're

259
00:13:55,679 --> 00:13:57,960
Speaker 1: very very cautious these days. All right, Thanks so much

260
00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:00,440
Speaker 1: for watching the trial so closely and report to us.

261
00:14:00,520 --> 00:14:03,960
Speaker 1: That's Lennon when she's the Bloomberg News f X reporter.

262
00:14:04,400 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

263
00:14:07,400 --> 00:14:11,160
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

264
00:14:11,240 --> 00:14:15,120
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

265
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:16,880
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg