5 questions about the so-called “Kerviel…” case

If I decided to speak out on the highly publicized Kerviel file, is that it seemed to me that keeping silent on such a case, on the grounds that we do not comment on a court decision, would be a mistake. What is at stake? Prevent the charges brought against Jérôme Kerviel from hampering the in-depth search for the whole truth.

Thus, when the public authorities pay 1700 million in tax revenue to compensate a bank, which it says has been the victim of fraud, you have to stop, look, and ask all the questions that such a case suggests, revealing the through the management of this bank. The following lines therefore aim to enlighten those who are motivated by the general interest and a sense of justice.

Let's say things clearly: my intention is not to clear Jérôme Kerviel of his responsibilities. It is still necessary to identify them with rigor, and for that to leave nothing in the shade, by examining with meticulousness all the facets of a file where it is impossible not to ask a certain number of questions.

First, it is surprising how several parts of French law seem to have been ignored. To hold Kerviel guilty commands to consider that the bank for which he officiated knew nothing of his speculative positions. If this is the case, banking law will have been violated, as will company law. To raise this point, it is necessary to ask Société Générale to give the Justice the working documents of its Statutory Auditors where everything must appear, including the operations taken by Jérôme Kerviel. Why was this not done?
Second question. How to believe that nobody saw anything within the bank when the exorbitant results of Jérôme Kerviel, each year, became his objectives for the following year? While an average trader in Jérôme Kerviel's scope earns Société Générale between 3 and 5 million euros per year, Kerviel makes 5 million the first year, 12 the following year, then 55 million euros declared in 2007. Remember that Jérôme Kerviel was only a junior trader, and that his exceptional results fed the bonuses received by his superiors. The figures are enough to wonder about the bank's knowledge of this affair.
Third question which follows naturally from the two previous ones. Why were the mailboxes of Jérôme Kerviel's hierarchy never seized? This exploitation would however have enabled the Justice to know what was the degree of knowledge of the bank on this affair, and to answer a simple question: is there only a Kerviel affair or is it a Societe Generale ?
How, and this is a fourth question that must challenge our intelligence, can the bank indicate that it is completely unaware of Kerviel's actions even though Société Générale itself corrected the impact in P&L (i.e. say as a result) of its operations? The schizophrenia of an institution which masks on the one hand what it claims to ignore on the other must open our eyes to the intertwining of responsibilities.
Finally, why were Jérôme Kerviel's hierarchical superiors paid up to seven years' fixed salary in the context of transactions with the bank even though they had been dismissed for serious misconduct? Such compensation for the culprits is puzzling. It is not customary to reward defaulting managers with such amounts.

These are all points that should interest all those who want the truth to be revealed in its entirety. The Kerviel file has so far been reduced to the personal case of the trader, without the essential answers having been provided to the fundamental questions that the citizen is entitled to ask.

If the so-called "Kerviel" affair concerns us all, it is first of all in the name of a certain idea of Justice. As it stands, whether convicted or cleared, Jérôme Kerviel will be on the sole basis of the statements of the civil party regarding the alleged losses. However, to date, justice has never deigned to investigate the reality of the loss declared by Société Générale. How to explain it? How can we explain that he was condemned on the basis of "confessions" presented by Société Générale, confessions of which we know thanks to Mediapart that they have been truncated and that more than 2 hours of explanations are missing?

Still, the litigant Jérôme Kerviel was deprived, despite numerous requests from his defence, of the possibility of obtaining an expert report establishing the reality of the losses alleged by Société Générale, which it must nevertheless be remembered that they have, for the most part, been carried out by others than him, during the settlement of his positions.

This point leads to a final one, which although non-judicial is just as essential, especially in these times of austerity where the reduction of public deficits takes the place of an iron law. On the grounds of compensating for its losses, the sum of 1700 million euros was literally offered to Société Générale out of public funds, whereas the case law of the Council of State did not allow it.

Taxpayers and all citizens have the right to know whether the payment of such sums was justified. The State has a duty to verify this and to respond to this point. Failing to fight his enemy finance, the President of the Republic must remain the guarantor of the fact that public funds have not been used to finance the excesses of crazy finance.

Because that's what it's all about: Jérôme Kerviel, despite the torrent of mud that fell on him, cannot serve as a screen for the madness of a system without morals and unlimited rapacity. All the strategies of the communication offices aiming to accredit the thesis of a man who would have acted alone must not divert us from the real issues.

In the United States, the country of king capitalism, the trial of "the whale of London" this trader who had bet too much and lost 6 billion euros finally became the trial of his employer, JP Morgan, accused of "reckless conduct ". And in France ? The contrast is sadly striking: one would like to condemn for life a former trader who has never acted except in the interest of his bank, who rewarded his hierarchy only as a bonus each year for his reckless speculative conduct?

Here the demand for truth and the civic imperative meet. Each passing day shows that our societies are sick, and first of all of their materialism. The treatment of the so-called "Kerviel" affair will tell if we have definitively surrendered to the powers of money or if there is still hope for the detoxification of our societies.