Adoboli Case

1. Do you think Mr. Adoboli acted alone or is UBS partially responsible for the alleged fraud? Why?

Being Mr. Abodoli a Junior Trader it is hard to believe that he could have done all of this by himself. He generated 2.3 billion in trading loss and in only 5 years his salary ninetuplicate his salary and it went from almost 60.000 $ in 2005 to almost 550,000 $ in 2010. How is it possible that this figures would not alert anyone one from upper management unless one of them was involved covering and explaining Mr. Abodoli act? It is hard to prove and tell who helped him but when a fraud this big is accomplished, in a system that involves human and tech security measures, it is almost impossible to act alone. UBS it is partially responsible for the simple fact that in a high risk business like this one, where scandal occurs and will keep happening, and where the amount of money and people involved are considerably high, prevention mesures along with straight controls must be happening on a daily bases. This is the samething that happens when people want to have wild animals under custody or also simple breeds or dogs that are by nature more aggressive than other species. They know they have high risk that these animals could harm other people if not controlled and pulled back by training. They need to keep them under control anytime any moments, because even a single minute of distraction could mean harm or fatality for other people. If it happens these people are responsible. USB metaphorically needs to be aware that people involved with money more often becomes wild animals and they can harm other people if not under control and being free to do what they want.

2. If others knew of the fraud and didn't speak up, should they be held partially responsible? Why?

The Emoloyees who knew about the fraud should definitely be considered in part responsible. It is like watching someone dying on the steet and walk away without calling 911 or be...