Former HSBC trader has fraud conviction overturned

Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20pd1y1e0eo
Credit: Andy Verity, BBC Financial investigations correspondent
Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/dJPKk

8787.webp

A British trader who was jailed in the United States for allegedly manipulating foreign exchange rates has had his conviction overturned after a nine-year struggle for justice.

Former HSBC trader Mark Johnson, 59, has fought to establish his innocence ever since he was convicted of fraud in 2017 in connection with a large foreign exchange trade six years earlier.

He served time in jail in US federal prisons and in Wandsworth prison in the UK, exhausting avenues of appeal before being released on license in 2022.

After the US courts in 2023 overturned a law that was used to prosecute him, he launched a fresh appeal, which has now been allowed by a US appeal court, granting him a full acquittal.

Mr Johnson's US lawyer Alexandra Shapiro said: "We are delighted that justice has finally been achieved for Mark Johnson, after a nine-year ordeal. This is a case that never should have been brought."

Prosecutors at Mr Johnson's trial alleged he had conspired with a colleague to increase the price of sterling against the dollar before executing a huge foreign exchange trade for HSBC's client Cairn Energy, converting $3.5bn into pounds.

They alleged that on behalf of HSBC, Mr Johnson arranged to buy sterling in advance, inflating the currency's value so that the bank made a quick gain before executing the trade for its client at a higher price – so called 'front-running'.

Following his conviction a foreign exchange industry body, ACI Financial Markets Association, petitioned the court, protesting that purchasing a currency ahead of a large trade was a normal industry practice to manage a bank's risk, known in the industry as 'pre-hedging'.

"Mr Johnson carried out the Cairn transaction consistent with industry practice and in violation of no law or rule, and he looks forward to moving on with his life," said Ms Shapiro.

Mr Johnson, a father of five from Hampshire, was originally arrested on 19 July 2016 as he accompanied his son and a friend to JFK Airport on his way home to the UK and was later tried and convicted on 18 October 2017.

His arrest took place three days after demands in Congress for the US government to pursue the prosecution of HSBC employees who had avoided facing justice.

Those calls were prompted by a congressional report, Too Big to Jail, which revealed that the British government had secretly intervened on HSBC's behalf in 2012, when the bank face the risk of prosecution for helping a Mexican drug cartel launder £881m and for facilitating trades with US-sanctioned countries such as Iran, Libya and Sudan.

Senior executives at HSBC had urged him to accept a new role in the US in March 2016, four months before his subsequent arrest. Because he was arrested in the US, it meant that there was no need for extradition proceedings.

By contrast his alleged co-conspirator, Stuart Scott, contested extradition to the US and won his hearing. The US Department of Justice later withdrew the charges against him.
 
Whatever one thinks of the practice itself (I'm not 100% sure I understand the currency manipulation aspect here and I'm not going to dig), it's bullshit to come down on someone for common industry practice (and the article gives no indication that common practice changed after this).

Though the article would benefit from a lot more details. Such as... why was the law repealed in 2023? What was the basis for granting his appeal (since I assume the repeal wasn't retroactive)? What put a bug up their butts about this transaction in particular if it's common practice? DID they attempt to prosecute anyone else for similar acts? I wish I could expect better from the BBC.

The more I write here the more I'm tempted to look at articles from around the time of the arrest and trial; I can imaging this caused waves in the financial world when it happened.

EDIT: OK, Reuters has a slightly better article.

NEW YORK, July 17 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Thursday voided the 2017 fraud conviction of a former HSBC (HSBA.L), opens new tab executive who spent two years in prison for "front-running" a British oil and gas exploration company's $3.5 billion currency trade.
In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Mark Johnson's conviction was tainted because the Supreme Court in an unrelated case later repudiated a fraud theory that underlay it.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.


The appeals court also expressed "grave doubt" Johnson could have been convicted under an alternative theory that he defrauded HSBC client Cairn Energy, now known as Capricorn Energy (CNE.L), opens new tab.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn declined to comment.
"We are delighted that justice has finally been achieved for Mark Johnson," his lawyer Alexandra Shapiro said in a statement. "Mr. Johnson carried out the Cairn transaction consistent with industry practice and in violation of no law or rule."
Johnson, a British father of six in his late 50s, had been the head of HSBC's global foreign exchange cash trading desk.

He was the first banker tried in the United States on currency rigging charges, following global probes into the multitrillion-dollar per day currency market.
According to prosecutors, Cairn had retained Johnson and another former HSBC executive in 2011 to convert $3.5 billion into British pounds sterling as it prepared to sell an Indian subsidiary.
Prosecutors said the executives quietly bought pounds for HSBC's own accounts before completing Edinburgh-based Cairn's trade, reaping a profit of about $7 million, court papers show.
A jury convicted Johnson of wire fraud and conspiracy after a four-week trial. The appeals court upheld the conviction in 2019.
But on Thursday, the appeals court said a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, Ciminelli v U.S., meant Johnson could not be convicted of denying Cairn a right to control its assets by reneging on a promise not to ramp up the pound's price.

Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi also said evidence that Johnson breached duties to Cairn by misappropriating its confidential information for his own benefit was "weak," and it was unlikely a jury would convict Johnson on that basis alone.
"We find ourselves--at the very least--in 'virtual equipoise' as to whether any jury, presented only with the misappropriation theory, would convict Johnson," Calabresi wrote. "That is more than enough to leave us with grave doubt."
The appeals court returned the case to U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, who oversaw the trial.
The case is Johnson v. U.S., 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1221.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler

OK, a bit more information:

In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Mark Johnson's conviction was tainted because the Supreme Court in an unrelated case later repudiated a fraud theory that underlay it.

The appeals court also expressed "grave doubt" Johnson could have been convicted under an alternative theory that he defrauded HSBC client Cairn Energy, now known as Capricorn Energy (CNE.L)

Original law was BS and the court found it wildly unlikely that he could be convicted under another one.

So if I'm understanding correctly - they purchased $3.5b worth of GBP ahead of a transaction (which I assume was about $3.5b). The prosecutors claimed that this was done to shift the exchange rate, effectively costing their customer more. But $3.5b seems tiny - a quick google tells me daily USD/GBP trading volume is north of $700b, and the global market is over $7t daily. It would have been smaller in 2016, but not by that much. I don't know forex much at all, but it seems like $3.5b is a pretty tiny transaction relative to the market (again, $700b is the DAILY volume) and I can't imagine what impact it could have had.

Weird case. I'm still curious how it came about in the first place - if $3.5b is abnormally large or unjustifiable in the industry.
 
Last edited:
So if I'm understanding correctly - they purchased $3.5b worth of GBP ahead of a transaction (which I assume was about $3.5b). The prosecutors claimed that this was done to shift the exchange rate, effectively costing their customer more. But $3.5b seems tiny - a quick google tells me daily USD/GBP trading volume is north of $700b, and the global market is over $7t daily. It would have been smaller in 2016, but not by that much. I don't know forex much at all, but it seems like $3.5b is a pretty tiny transaction relative to the market (again, $700b is the DAILY volume) and I can't imagine what impact it could have had.
Manipulation to earn an extra penny is still manipulation.
 
Back