"Since the investigation began in 2010, it was important that the group did not do or say anything that could subsequently prejudice the trial,” the bank added.
Is this true ?
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
"Since the investigation began in 2010, it was important that the group did not do or say anything that could subsequently prejudice the trial,” the bank added.
swill453 wrote:Or is your point that you don't believe they made the correct choices of what not to do or say? A different question.
Or is your point that you don't believe they made the correct choices of what not to do or say? A different question.
stockton wrote:Or is your point that you don't believe they made the correct choices of what not to do or say? A different question.
Were an edit button available I would have changed the question, but I also felt it fairly obvious that the question was not intended to be taken literally.
In fact it appears to me that very little of what Lloyds might have done could prejudice the trial. In practice, as long as they did not announce that the accused were guilty, they could have got on with dealing with the other victims as soon as they realised that a scam existed.
Or am I wrong ?
Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests