DOJ wants to exclude expert testimony proposed by ex-Deutsche Bank traders in LIBOR-rigging case

Maria Nikolova

The defendants’ proposed expert testimony as to the adequacy of the government’s discovery, establishment of the conspiracy, and benefit or harm to Deutsche Bank’s counterparties is incurably improper, the DOJ argues.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and former Deutsche Bank traders accused of LIBOR manipulation have clashed over expert testimony. Less than a fortnight after Matthew Connolly and Gavin Campbell Black, former derivative product traders at Deutsche Bank, who stand accused of LIBOR rigging, enlisted the names of three experts supposed to help them in their defense, the Government has moved to exclude this expert testimony from the case.

On August 28, 2018 (Tuesday), the DOJ filed a Motion to exclude certain testimony with the New York Southern District Court. In brief, the Government opposes the defendants’ proposals.

According to the DOJ, the defendants’ proposed expert testimony as to the adequacy of the government’s discovery, establishment of the conspiracy, and benefit or harm to Deutsche Bank’s counterparties is incurably improper, and the Court should exclude it. In addition, given the deficiencies in Defendants’ disclosures, all three of their experts should be barred from testifying. At a minimum, the Court should require they provide the required “bases and reasons” for their opinions and thereafter allow the government an opportunity to challenge the testimony.

The first category of testimony that the Government challenges is testimony that is said to be “incurably improper”. Specifically, the former Deutsche Bank traders intend to introduce expert testimony that

  • the “Government failed to provide discovery,”
  • the “totality of the trading positions held by Deutsche Bank traders and/or counterparties . . . does not establish the alleged conspiracy,” and
  • Deutsche Bank’s counterparties may have benefitted or may not have been harmed by LIBOR manipulation.

According to the DOJ, such testimony would be irrelevant, mislead and confuse jurors as to the necessary elements of the charged offenses, and invade the respective roles of the jury and the Court. It should therefore be excluded.

In the second category is data-driven testimony that, while summarized in bullet-point lists, should be excluded because it is unaccompanied by adequate bases and reasons. According to the Government, the expert testimony proffered by the defendants would rely heavily on data analytics which, in spite of the government’s request, the defendants have refused to disclose or even to preview. Without knowing the bases and reasons for the opinions the defendants’ experts intend to offer, the Court will be unable to perform its gatekeeping role of determining the admissibility of expert testimony and the government will not be able to adequately prepare for cross-examination.

Despite the government’s requests, both defendants have refused to provide the missing bases and reasons—instead insisting they have no such obligation. But without any indication of the bases or reasons for Matthew A. Evans’ or Dr Jonathan Arnold’s opinions, the Court is set to be unable to assess “whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid” and “whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts at issue.”

Two areas of the defendants’ proposed expert testimony in particular demonstrate the need for further disclosures, the DOJ says. These are the opinions relating to the “economical reasonability” or “reasonable range” of LIBOR submissions, and testimony regarding Mr. Black’s position to benefit from the fraud. Both areas of testimony are potentially improper, as they carry a high risk of misleading and confusing the jury regarding the elements of the charged offenses.

The defendants intend for Dr. Arnold to testify that Deutsche Bank’s USD LIBOR submissions identified in the Superseding Indictment and in the government’s summary exhibits were “economically reasonable”, and for Mr. Evans to explain the submissions were “supported by factors that demonstrated the reasonability of each submission on each date”. Also, the defendants intend for Christopher Rooke to explain that a panel bank submitter like Deutsche Bank would have “had the discretion to submit LIBOR within a reasonable range”.

Allowing such testimony unfettered could easily mislead the jury regarding the law that applies to the charged offenses, by suggesting LIBOR submissions must have been “unreasonable” to sustain a conviction. That is not the law, the DOJ notes.

The case is captioned USA v. Connolly (1:16-cr-00370).

Read this next

Digital Assets

Masa and LayerZero: Bridging Blockchains for Data Sovereignty

Masa Network is poised to revolutionize the personal data landscape with its upcoming launch as a cross-chain platform, making it accessible on a variety of blockchains right from the start.

Digital Assets

Big Time Generates over $100M in Revenue since Preseason

Innovative game developer Big Time Studios announces that its highly anticipated free-to-play multiplayer action/MMO RPG Big Time, has generated $100M in revenue. According to the team, players transacted a total volume of over $230M, without selling a single token.

Digital Assets

Centralized exchanges are 10 times more popular than DEXs in Western Europe

Western European traders are found to prefer centralized exchanges over decentralized ones as CEX traffic outpaces DEXs by a factor of ten.

Market News

Stock Market Analysis: Is NVDA Losing Its Leadership?

Since the beginning of the week, the S&P 500 Index (US500) has seen a modest increase of about 0.58%, whereas NVDA’s share price has experienced a decline of approximately 3.8%. This recent divergence raises concerns among Nvidia stock investors — could it signify a loss of NVDA’s market leadership?

Industry News

ESG: Australian regulator wins first greenwashing court case against Vanguard

Vanguard admitted that a notable portion of the securities within both the Index and the Fund did not undergo the promised ESG scrutiny.

Fintech, Uncategorized

BitMEX integrates HALO from Solidus Labs for cross-market surveillance

“The recent approval of the Spot Bitcoin ETF has piqued the market’s interest. As a result of price volatility, the trading volumes for crypto derivatives have gone up substantially. HALO, with its advanced technology and crypto-native detection architecture, will enable BitMEX to smoothly and safely scale trade surveillance across its increased trading volumes and provide the necessary safeguards for new product launches.”

Reviews

IUX Broker Review

IUX, recently rebranded from IUX Markets, stands as a multi-asset Forex broker recognized for its regulatory compliance across various jurisdictions.

Industry News

Horizon Software rebrands to Horizon Trading Solutions

“Horizon Trading Solutions has seen accelerated global growth over the past year to meet the rising demand for our trading solutions and built-for-purpose technology offering. The choice to rebrand represents a key part of this development, while maintaining our heritage and history in the industry.”

Market News

USDJPY has surged to levels last witnessed in 2022. Should we consider opening a short position?

The recent resurgence of the US dollar has propelled USD/JPY to new heights, touching levels not seen since 2022. This surge comes against the backdrop of stable short-term yields and ongoing economic data that fails to signal a significant slowdown, prompting questions about the extent of current monetary easing measures.

<