125
Jérôme Kerviel and his lawyer David
Koubbi arrive at the Paris appeal court
in 2012. Kerviel lost this appeal, but a
subsequent appeal in 2016 reduced the
fine to €1 million (£840,000).See also: Charles Ponzi 102–07 ■ Bernie Madoff 116–21WHITE COLLAR CRIMES
On 5 October 2010, Judge Pauthe
sentenced Kerviel to three years
in prison and ordered him to
pay Société Générale €4.9 billion
(£4.4 billion) in compensation.Alternative opinions
Sceptics of the official narrative,
including Kerviel’s former work
colleagues, have pointed out that
the sheer scale of this unauthorized
trading could not have escaped the
bank’s attention for so long. They
also said that completing such
large trades within three days
would have been impossible.
Furthermore, they argued, Kerviel’s
position in the company made it
unlikely that he had worked alone.Wrongful dismissal
In 2014, France’s Court of Cassation
reduced the repayment amount on
the basis that Judge Pauthe’s
decision did not consider the role of
the bank’s own inadequate risk-
management procedures. Kerviel
was freed that same year.
However, Kerviel was
determined to carry on his fight
against the bank. In June 2016, he
convinced a French labour tribunal
that the termination of his
employment from the bank had
been unethical. In a strange
paradox, the labour board ordered
the bank to pay him €300,000
(£250,000) in compensation,
including recompense for unused
vacation and his 2007 performance
bonus. In September 2016, Kervielappeared in court to appeal his
€4.9 billion (£4.4 billion) fine. He
won the case and the fine was
reduced to €1 million (£840,000).
Unfairly or not, Kerviel is seen as
a martyr by some: a businessman
pressured to compete unethically
by a corrupt system that sacrificedhim at the first sign of trouble.
Regardless of the level of the bank’s
complicity, Kerviel has taken the
opportunity for self-aggrandizement- in 2014 he made a well publicized
pilgrimage to Rome to discuss the
“tyranny of the markets” with
Pope Francis. ■
The psychology of lying
In his book The Honest Truth
About Dishonesty, Dr Dan
Ariely, a cognitive psychologist
and behavioural economist at
Duke University, North Carolina,
proposes that the likelihood of
an individual being dishonest
increases when they: (1) can
rationalize the lie, (2) have a
conflict of interest, (3) have lied
about the matter in the past,
(4) observe others behaving
dishonestly, (5) belong to a
culture or sub-culture where
dishonesty is normalized,(6) know others will benefit from
their deceit, (7) are highly
creative and imaginative, and
(8) are tired or stressed.
In the case of Jérôme Kerviel,
the first six factors certainly
apply, while the last two are
possible. Brain imaging has
shown that lying and repeated
deception reduces activity in the
amygdala, the area of the brain
where emotional responses are
processed. This reduction can
limit the feelings of shame or
guilt that are often associated
with lying, making it easier to
continue lying.124-125_Jerome_Kerviel.indd 125 02/12/2016 16:17