HBOS Scandal

[stockton]

"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 ?

[chas49]

Possibly. What scandal? Where did they say this?

[stockton]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... mpensation

[swill453]

Well of course it is true that "it was important that the group did not do or say anything that could subsequently prejudice the trial".

To do or say something that they knew could subsequently prejudice the trial would be pretty stupid.

Or is your point that you don't believe they made the correct choices of what not to do or say? A different question.

Scott.

[Alaric]

Or is your point that you don't believe they made the correct choices of what not to do or say? A different question.

Whilst perhaps they had to be cagey about legal issues, they did however dismiss those eventually convicted. Was it really necessary to pursue some of the victims through the Courts for the moneys that they had been deceived or coerced into borrowing?

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/readin ... s-12533659

[stockton]

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 ?

[melonfool]

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 ?

1) there is an 'edit' button (though it is time-limited)
2) this is the 'Legal - Practical' board, so questions tend to be taken literally.

Your 'as soon as they realised a scam existed' is the same as saying the accused were guilty, so yes, it could be seen to introduce prejudice into the trial.

Mel