London forex trader sues Citigroup for $112m over ‘malicious’ prosecution
A London-based former Citigroup trader is suing the bank for over $112m (£91m), alleging the bank made materially false and malicious statements to US prosecutors which led to him being tried in New York on foreign exchange rigging-charges.
Rohan Ramchandani, former European head of the US bank’s forex spot market trading desk, is alleging Citigroup made false statements about him to government investigators and the media after firing him in 2014 without cause.
Read more: Forex firm hit with record £7.8m fine by HMRC for anti-money laundering failures
“Ultimately, Citi quite literally fabricated an antitrust case for the United States Department of Justice against Ramchandani based upon knowingly false allegations that he engaged in market ‘manipulation’ and ‘collusion’,” read the complaint, which was filed in a Manhattan court.
A Citigroup spokesperson said: “Ramchandani’s claims of malicious prosecution are without merit and we will contest them vigorously”.
Ramchandani and two other London-based traders were cleared last year of plotting to manipulate benchmark exchange rates in the foreign exchange markets by a New York court.
US and UK authorities have fined some of the world’s biggest banks around $10bn over the foreign exchange scandal, but the Serious Fraud Office abandoned a criminal investigation into the allegations in 2016, saying it lacked sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.
In his lawsuit, Ramchandani alleges that an unnamed Citigroup lawyer who had “full knowledge” of the facts had recognised he had not engaged in intentional wrongful conduct or broken any laws or regulations.
Read more: Citigroup closes in on £1.2bn purchase of Canary Wharf headquarters
He also alleges that his manager at Citigroup had said he had not engaged in “collusion or price fixing” and there was “nothing criminal” in either his extent or actions.
Ramchandani alleges the bank only pleaded guilty to conspiring to manipulate currencies in 2015 in order to pin the blame on him and limit regulatory consequences for its other staff, and that although he was acquitted, the bank’s conduct had cost him millions of dollars his career.