Usually in the banking sector, it's not uncommon to have a private agreement before going into court case. Especially when this is a mutual benefit between the

Usually in the banking sector, it's not uncommon to have a private agreement before going into court case. Especially when this is a mutual benefit between the employee and the employer (the bank). As the "fraud" within the bank has always a negative impact on the bank's credibility (a key factor for operating a bank), a private agreement is usually better for everyone. But the period was bad for the trader, Société Général was in a bad shape due to their subprime losses. So it was easier for SG to charge the insider trader than willing to find an agreement. Especially that would cover the current subprime losses as not originating (even if the banks lacks controls or auditing) from the bank itself but more from the "evil" trader. The surprise is now more coming on the judgment itself where the internal bank operation was not deeply analyzed. If you are old enough, you may remember the Crédit Lyonnais fire in Paris destroying the whole archive in 1996. Maybe the appeal would go more in the archive of SG and re-balance a bit the judgment...