LIBOR Rigging

For years, a poll of large banks helped set LIBOR—the London Interbank Offered Rate that priced trillions in loans and derivatives. Between roughly 2005 and 2009, chat logs later waved in court showed traders asking colleagues to shade those submissions. The market number was, on enough days, a committee with a P&L.

Submitters and the Books

LIBOR was supposed to reflect what banks thought they would pay to borrow from each other. Some desks saw a simpler use: nudge the print to help swaps and futures. Internal messages were casual. The dollar amounts were not.

Fines Without Jail for Most

Barclays broke early with a 2012 settlement. Others followed. A handful of traders saw criminal cases. Most accountability arrived as institutional fines and deferred prosecutions—the familiar post-crisis bargain.

Design Was Destiny

A benchmark built on unverifiable submissions invited gaming. Reforms pushed toward transaction-based alternatives and LIBOR wind-down timelines. That redesign concedes the scandal's engineering critique.

Cabal Myths Versus Documents

Conspiracy folklore sometimes casts LIBOR as a single cabal steering the world economy daily. The documents show something both narrower and uglier: distributed cheating inside a fragile public utility.

The record establishes widespread trader-driven manipulation and regulatory settlement. It does not require a cartoon mastermind to be historically severe.

CFTC’s 2012 Barclays order is summarized at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/6289-12; DOJ’s Deutsche Bank resolution is at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/deutsche-bank-ag-resolve-us-criminal-investigation.

Regulator notices and DOJ resolutions settle that submitter panels were nudged for trading books; they do not invent a single cabal that explains every rate print.