UBS case banker dishonest: Judge
An American banker who worked for investment bank UBS has been described as "thoroughly dishonest" by a High Court judge.
Mr Justice Males said Steven Bracy was a "dishonest witness" who had been "highly evasive".
The judge made his criticisms in a written judgment on litigation involving UBS following a High Court hearing in London.
UBS was embroiled in a row relating to a deal with a German water company involving financial products and said it was owed money. The Leipzig municipal water company disputed UBS's claims.
Mr Justice Males today made rulings in favour of the German firm.
The judge said the trial had revealed a "sorry story of greed and corruption" from which neither UBS nor the water company emerged with credit.
He said of Mr Bracy: "Mr Bracy was a thoroughly dishonest man and dishonest witness.
"He had obviously been heavily coached (by his own lawyers who attended the trial during the four days when he gave evidence, not by UBS's) and was highly evasive, refusing to give straight answers to simple questions."
The judge said Mr Bracy had "deliberately deceived his colleagues at UBS" about a credit rating, had made a number of fraudulent expenses claims while at UBS and "willingly co-operated" when asked to "fabricate false evidence" that a trip to Dubai had been for legitimate business purposes.
Mr Bracy told the hearing that strippers had been provided for two clients who were visiting New York in 2006.
The judge was told that the evening had not turned out as planned and Mr Bracy had picked up a bill equivalent to about £4,000 because the two men ''did not participate in any way''.
He heard that Mr Bracy later emailed the men, saying: ''The fourth one was very, very pretty. Almost enough to make up for the other three. Almost.''
Mr Bracy told the court: ''I didn't think it would be proper for them to pay for certain services which they did not take advantage of. So I paid for it ... out of my own pocket.''
He told the judge that providing strippers was not ''typical'' entertainment.
The judge made no mention of strippers when describing the New York episode in his ruling.
He said: "Apparently the evening's entertainment ... did not go so well, for reasons which it was unnecessary to explore at trial, and Mr Bracy decided to pay for this out of his own pocket."
But he said Mr Bracy had a "lawyer friend" whose role appeared to have been to "arrange for strippers" for certain clients visiting the United States.