Societe Generale scandal: who is responsible?

[Christophe]

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/j%C3%A9r%C3%B4 ... nance.html

6 years later ...

[Obamot]

8 years later ...

Société Générale ordered to pay 450 euros to Jérôme Kerviel

French justice on Tuesday ordered Société Générale to pay 450 euros (000 francs) to its former trader Jérôme Kerviel "for having dismissed him without real or serious cause".

Source; capital.fr .jpg (48.51 KiB) Viewed 3281 times

The Paris labor tribunal ruled that the dismissal by Société Générale of Jérôme Kerviel, the former trader convicted of having caused the bank to lose 4,9 billion euros, was "without real or serious cause" and in "vexatious" conditions, we learned from the authority.

A spokesman for Société Générale said that the bank, ordered to pay more than 450 euros in compensation, was appealing this decision.
"Scandalous" decision

The bank's lawyer denounced a "scandalous" decision, recalling that Jérôme Kerviel had been convicted in criminal matters for fraudulent stock market maneuvers.

A crook for some, a scapegoat for others, Jérôme Kerviel, 39, was sentenced to five years in prison, three of which are criminal. He asked for a new trial.

The civil trial is scheduled to resume on June 15 in Versailles.

http://www.rts.ch/info/monde/7784766-la ... rviel.html

Victory of the young wolf with the mischievous look of 2008?
Too good for some who earn the minimum wage, little consolation for him who earned millions of euros per year >>>

Long live the UK at € 2 ...!?

[Christophe]

Yes little consolation ... it will pay him the lawyer fees ... and again ...

The Anglo Saxons are furious with this decision (well yeah should not touch the banks ...)

By cons I do not understand the:

"for having dismissed him without real or serious cause".

[Obamot]

This is the trick to digesting the SG pill, without giving too many details on the underside of the case and "occult banking practices"!

In my opinion this is only the first step towards a new trial (fortified by this decision, Kerviel will not be shy)

Well, UK banksters, they start by entering Europe, they will see if they have a say next!

[Janic]

By cons I do not understand the:
"
"for having dismissed him without real or serious cause".

the different courts (civil, criminal, industrial tribunal) do not have the same value judgment criteria. Thus the industrial tribunal judges the professional faults of the UNIQUE fact of the employee. Now Kerviel, by his profession, played Russian roulette in accordance with his hierarchy (which assumes that this game can only be played to his advantage with big sous!) So it is not a dismissal for professional misconduct (otherwise a very large number errors would lead to layoffs to the extent that they were INTENTIONAL, which did not appear to be the case here.)

[Grelinette]

By cons I do not understand the:

"for having dismissed him without real or serious cause".

It would also seem that the SG simply did not respect the legal dismissal procedure: letter of invitation to interview prior to dismissal, deadlines, etc. Like what it has little to do!

In any case, we have not finished hearing about this case ... and the more we are going to use the details of legal proceedings and the less we will look at the essentials of banking operations.

[Christophe]

Kerviel's mea culpa (better late than never ...)

https://www.facebook.com/NicolasClementFr/videos/1039566252747848/