to a us senate committee for allowing firms to misuse the personal data of tens of millions of people. he accepted facebook had not taken a broad enough view of its responsibility and had been exploited by russia in the us presidential election. the markets liked his testimony, facebook shares closed 4.5% up. the us, the uk and france are thought to be considering joint military action against the syrian government, within hours, in response to the suspected chemical attack on a rebel—held town in syria. earlier, russia used its veto in the un security council to block a resolution for an inquiry. airlines have been officially warned by the european air traffic control agency to exercise caution in the eastern mediterranean, in the next 72 hours, because of possible cruise missile strikes. you are a debate on the headlines

of. it is 2:30 a.m.. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i am stephen sackur. politicians will always say that they are tough on crime, but evidence suggests they find it easier to be tough on murderers, muggers and robbers than they do on corporate white collar criminals engaged in fraud and money laundering. my guest today is the outgoing head of britain's serious fraud office, david green. for six years he has been out to apprehend corporate criminals, but has he ever been given the tools and the backing to do thejob properly? david green, welcome to hardtalk.

you are just david green, welcome to hardtalk. you arejust coming david green, welcome to hardtalk. you are just coming to the end of six years running return‘s serious fraud office. how much does it concern you that the uk still has a reputation as a place where dodgy deals and dodgy businessman and women can find a home and pursue their dodgy business?” women can find a home and pursue their dodgy business? i wouldn't really comment on how our reputation is perceived, i am an investigator and prosecutor, i go after the evidence and to the individuals to who that point. reputation matters? national reputation? of course, extremely important. we have seen, we are getting new tools, useful

tools which will help us a pack that problem. so are you saying that yes there has been a problem, we are on there has been a problem, we are on the cusp of being able to fix it? i am mindful, the words of tom keating, respected characterfor am mindful, the words of tom keating, respected character for the national centre for crime and studies, who said last month the british government can no longer ignore the ugly truth that the reputation of london and the uk more broadly, is as the money—laundering capital of the world. it is justifiably earned, it has been stoked by the ambitions of the city, aided in no small part, by past governments. an interesting quote, he may well be right. the serious fraud office focuses of course on the top level of serious and complex fraud and also mainly commercial bribery. i am pretty stunned. he may be right, you say. so you may work

ina milieu, be right, you say. so you may work in a milieu, where the city, aided and abetted by past governments has become a place where money—laundering is the norm?|j money—laundering is the norm?” don't think i necessarily agree with that. i certainly wouldn't regard money—laundering as the norm. we do know, however, there has been cash flows into this country which may be questionable and it is something, an area which is increasingly subject to interest of investigators and prosecutors. i wouldn't suggest you are the only agencies concerned with this, you are part of an umbro of different enforcement agencies but it does strike me that your funding has been squeezed at a time where we have seen this white—collar and corporate crime, going up, according to all of the estimates. your budget, dealing with it, controlling it and enforcing the law has gone steadily down. i am touched about people ‘s concern about the serious fraud office. in fact, i have never

turn down a case on the basis that it would be too expensive to investigate. ourfunding, it would be too expensive to investigate. our funding, our core funding is around £31 million...m used funding is around £31million...m used to be over £50 million. but on top of that, we have access to what is called blockbuster funding and between the two of them, that comes to an average spend of around £52 million per year to wrap my turn. with a high of 62 and a low of 38. you have to go cap in hand on a case—by—case basis to win the money to conduct the investigations and prosecutions that you feel that their minimum of what your office should be doing? that seems an extraordinary way to work. that is not what happens. if any particular investigation, we think will cost a certain percentage of our core budget, than in those circumstances we can go to the treasury and get locked to take care of that entire case. and that we have done in two

01’ case. and that we have done in two or three cases, rolls—royce is one example. you were quoted as saying this by the bloomberg news agency as recently as just a month or so ago, it you said "you can detect a certain ambivalence about corporate crime. you can see people wondering, why on earth are you, the head of the serious fraud office, investigating these blue—chip listed c . investigating these blue—chip listed companies?" is that a mindset, a characterisation about the politicians in this country? no, i didn't mention that in connection with the politicians and haven't come across it in any politician in this country. what i have seen, perhaps in the media generally, a slight questioning of why are you going after big, important british companies? i am amazed you say it is nothing to do with politicians because at an event, according to bloomberg, recently, you questioned david cameron himself. you said, what do you think of the work we

have been doing at the serious fraud office? he replied saying, "yes, i support work that the serious fraud office does. " but he added that as a prime minister you feel this possibility to want to go out there and perceive there are real frustrations and worries and concerns. that is exactly the view that he expressed. i know it is, it isa that he expressed. i know it is, it is a rather odd one. he is sort of suggesting that he has to balance the pursuit of justice, suggesting that he has to balance the pursuit ofjustice, yourjob, against concerns about winning orders, keeping business in this country. i thought it was remarkable, but that is why i asked the question. did you think it was remarkable? yes i did. who is indicating there were some sort of compromise. the answer i was expecting was yes when i ask do you support the work then and now of the serious fraud office of investigation of commercial bribery of business abroad. one would think

the answer to that isn't yes, but without a slightly different answer which bloomberg has seen of interest. of interest to you and i wonder if that is indicative of not only david cameron's mindset —— mindset, but also of the incumbent theresa may. we know that she has long seen the serious fraud office is something of an anomaly. —— serious fraud office. she wants take away its independent entity. that is away its independent entity. that is a different point. i have always said how the economic crime institution waterfront is arranged is to the ministers. myjob has been an always has been for six years, is to make the case for the one as strongly as i possibly can. i have donein strongly as i possibly can. i have done in respect of three basic decibels. firstly, the model on which we are built, investigating and prosecute in a single organisation. secondly, the fact

that we are a small organisation with a sole priority, mainly bribery and serious and complex fraud. and thirdly, our independence, our independence from central government which is crucial, if given the fact that we do investigate some of our most important companies. given those three criteria that you have applied, it is not —— is it not time for you to say that you haven't had the backing from the politicians that you have needed?” the backing from the politicians that you have needed? i have had sufficient backing is. i have had a lot of support. we discussed at how surprised you were at david cameron's mindset. he was speaking as an ex— prime minister at a conference. he was speaking of his mindset when he was prime minister. that is not what i detected it was. i have not detected any lack of support or opposition to what we we re support or opposition to what we were doing. there may be perfectly principled used as to whether the serious fraud office should continue in its present form. i happen to think we should, for the reasons i

gave. 50 to the nitty-gritty of the cases of gabon after during your tenure. —— gone after. it is interesting. —— let's get to. you have been the investigator and prosecutor in the number of cases you choose to go. how do you choose which cases to take on? when i came into thejob, there which cases to take on? when i came into the job, there were various, sort of criteria, including financial amounts, announced it a case was worth... it has to be sufficiently big. seemed to me to be com pletely sufficiently big. seemed to me to be completely wrong and unhelpful because these days all fraud is huge and there can be a potential loss that would be crystallised but would nevertheless be an extremely serious case. i have said that the cases will, we will go after our cases that were undermined uk financial plc in particular, all the city of

london. if you look at rolls—royce and so forth, you will see... let's go through a view of these. libor is the key, it is where one of the officers went after one of the big scandals after everything that came out after the financial meltdown of 2007- 2008. libor is out after the financial meltdown of 2007— 2008. libor is the interbank lending, one of the asic bits of banking. —— basic bits. it is crucial to the way banks finance both themselves and give money to those seeking to borrow from the banks. it is one of the key cogs in the machinery of the financial system and it appears that it was being rigged. you looked into it. your predecessor decided not to. how could that be? i don't know. his choice, i looked at it when i came

in the summer of 2012. to remind people, you are looking at something that had happened three or four yea rs that had happened three or four years previously. it seems weird to me that the serious fraud office said that has nothing to do with us. my said that has nothing to do with us. my predecessor may have thought that is something that needed to be looked at by regulators such as the financial conduct authority. at a different view thought it warranted a committal investigation by the sfo. you undertook one and it took a long time and was extraordinary complex. at the end of it, without going into too much detail, a dozen we re going into too much detail, a dozen were convicted of crimes, a if you are serving sentences. none of them we re very are serving sentences. none of them were very senior are serving sentences. none of them were very senior and a whole bunch of other cases that you brought to court bailed and the individuals concerned were acquitted. a lot of people looking at it would say that you went after the easiest cases, the low hanging fruit and didn't make much of a success and in the

course of doing so you ended up with a lot of egg on your face. note egg that i have detected. what we did is that i have detected. what we did is that we prosecuted, hayes, we then prosecuted some cash traders, all of whom were acquitted after a two—month trial. weeden to —— we then went after the berkeley is traded and two of those were convicted. differentjuries take different views of the same evidence of. of course they do, that is their right to. —— barclays. my reference to egg on face was in reference to it is clear that one of the key prosecution expert witnesses, you saw the appointment —— you oversaw the appointment of, was absolutely useless. it was highly complex testimony and he had to text his mates finding out what on earth they we re mates finding out what on earth they were talking about. that was the case... thejudge called it a

debacle. in the court of appeal it was called a debacle, but they made the case clearly in dismissing the appeal that the evidence had not made any difference. nobody would pretend that pursuing these sorts of crimes is not incredibly complicated, difficult stuff. it ta kes a complicated, difficult stuff. it takes a long time, huge resources and we discussed that he had enough resources . and we discussed that he had enough resources. but the appearance was that the sfo wasn't really doing a good enoughjob. i thinki that the sfo wasn't really doing a good enough job. i think i dispute that. as i said, we have brought a number of people to try all. we now have another trial under way at the moment... that is the eurozone case of libor. he has pleaded with the. these are not that all people. kristian bopara, 90 million euros. he isa kristian bopara, 90 million euros. he is a very successful trader. a lot of people are collecting on what

happened in the financial crash and as it happens i saw the big capture what the other day, it is a reminder of the craziness and negligence and criminality of what happened to our financial system. here are some words from the former prime minister gordon brown, ten years on from the crash. he had to deal with it and the fallout, he said this on the decade—long anniversary: "if bankers who act fraudulently are not put jail with their bonuses returned as well and their assets confiscated and banned from future practice, we only give a green light to similar, risk laden behaviour in new forms. " i put it to you that the bank is at the top of this pyramid, those who took the decisions, who behaved negligently and criminally, they got off scot—free. the problem is, i think contained in your wording was a leap from negligence to cronulla did. negligence is no good for a

prosecutor. we need evidence of criminality. —— criminality. prosecutor. we need evidence of criminality. -- criminality. you send you are not interested in bringing in ceos? of course we are. if the evidence is there. but we followed the evidence not individuals. we follow the evidence and the individuals. as the outgoing chief of the fso, can you, hand on heart, look back over the last six yea rs of heart, look back over the last six years of your investigations, and seated you believe all of those guilty of criminal wrongdoing have been at least put a courtroom and the evidence against them tested?” can say people have been charged without there is —— i can say that people have been charged where there has been sufficient evidence to

charge them. that is the coat as we have the players prosecutors. but this is a careful, methodical process will you follow the evidence will stop you don't start with saint just lets get this person. this is not so much about your investigations into the banking sector, but more to your approach to corporate crime. you have said that people commit fraud, not companies, and you cannot jail a people commit fraud, not companies, and you cannotjail a company. so, i guess the public will be left wondering if that is the approach, who is really being held to account? well, and you can prosecute a company, but it can become a —— but a company cannot be jailed. the only available punishment is to find it at the end of the day, or wind it up. if there is evidence, if you can prove offences by individuals, of course, you go after them as well. honestly, it baffles me how you, again, in dual role as head of the

fso, can supervise a four—year investigation a great big flagship company like rolls—royce, and conclude that there was systematic rock behaviour going on over a three decade period, and yet, in the end, you don't bring down any of the absolute top leaders of the company of that period, you give them a deferred prosecution agreement. you find them a lot of money, but actually, no individuals are held to account. two different tracks here. a prosecution agreement can only apply to a company. we felt in that case that we would enforce against the company via the dpa first. on a different track, we are sitting through evidence with a view to see if individual should be charged. yes, because what we see is huge amounts of money being paid back, but as one expert pointed out, as soon as the deal was announced, the

markets were so thrilled for rolls—royce' future that it outweighed the punishment. —— rolls—royce's who is paying for 30 yea rs of rolls—royce's who is paying for 30 years of fraudulent and corrupt behaviour? —— rolls royce's. —— who is paying. on a separate track, one looks at the evidence to see if there is a case against individuals. we are still undertaking those investigations. the government will feel gravely letdown... that is not how a prosecutor works. you look at the evidence. this is what the judge said. while at the same time agreeing to this so—called dba, which was controversial, he said his reaction, when first considering the papers, was that rolls—royce were not to be prosecuted in the context of egregious commonality over

decades. —— dpa. it was difficult to see how any company would be prosecuted. even thejudge see how any company would be prosecuted. even the judge seems to be baffled by this. hardly. that is the first paragraph of his, i think, 90 pagejudgement, where he goes through all the judgement and outlines the reasons he thinks the dpa was in the best interest. this is not just any dpa was in the best interest. this is notjust any old judge. but as you are outgoing, can you say to me that you believe that the punishment fit the crime is right now, in yours to make your sphere? —— fit the crime is right now, in yours to make yoursphere? —— in fit the crime is right now, in yours to make your sphere? —— in your sphere. sentences of more than bribery have gone up almost exponentially over the past ten or 15 years. for rolls-royce, a company sailing into the horizon, despite 30 yea rs of sailing into the horizon, despite 30 years of what the judge described as egregious criminality. and paid a

fine of £497 million. that is fine. so many would say, given its behaviour, rolls—royce should be wound up. that is a large fine, isn't it? as we discussed, looking at the share price, afterwards, it didn't really matter what happened. i think half £1 billion is a significant penalty. before we close, let's consider the international climate. you get the kind of international cooperation you need in the context of a global business and financial market? yes. there are some countries wake getting evidence is either impossible or not to happen. russia, for instance. interesting that you should point to russia. i think it is about £80 billion worth of russian property purchases in london. it has become a haven for the so—called oligarchs. are you able to investigate whether get their money from? well, it we couldn't get evidence out of russia.

in order to prove money laundering, you need to prove in law a predicate offence. in other words, the offence which generated the money, and showed that is commonality. and therefore the money that they are spending investing here is basically the fruits of crime. that is a big ask. depending whether criminality took place, that obviously can be very difficult. given what you describe as non—cooperation to russia, you cannot pursue any of these people? it depends. there may be offences over here. there may be advancesin be offences over here. there may be advances in other jurisdictions. very rarely does the money come straight from russia to this country. it will come through other jurisdictions and other offences may have been committed there. which other countries are not co—operating right now? other countries? acting russia is a good example. we have had that one. —— i think russia is a good example. i think, had that one. —— i think russia is a good example. ithink, now had that one. —— i think russia is a

good example. i think, now and again, china is not as cooperative as one would expect. i'm not in the city in countries who perhaps may have perfectly valid objections to an execution of a letter of request. i suppose the panama papers told us that money was being hidden away, salted away in havens of different discussions. i wonder if you have access to financial records and deals that you need to get from all sorts of different places. a referring specifically to british overseas territories? british and non— british. overseas territories? british and non- british. british overseas territories are much improved. much improved. the panama papers have been sifted by all interested agencies for material relevant to organised crime, tax cases, and to fraud. they have been gone through. a final thought on britain and the future. we are in the era of brexit. the message from the government is that britain has to up its game. do

you think that climate makes it ever more difficult for the people running your agency? because the government is riding two horses at once. he wants to see the rule of law applies to the city of london, but also sang we want as much money to come into london as possible.” think there is an important point here. i am so the agree with you. we will need inward investment. but inward capital investment is struck by two things: one is a rule of law jurisdictions where things are reliable and predictable. the second is the level playing field for investors. and that is what the fso held to investigate. giving britain, right now, has the balance right? the balance between? —— do you think britain. given that all is being done to wipe out white—collar crime.

the fso is very active. we have a staff of 540. we have a significant budget. we have ongoing investigations and trials. we play our part. david green, we have delivered there. thank you very a much indeed for being on hardtalk. thank you. —— we have two leave it there. —— to. hello, good morning. there is warmer weather on the way for all of us in the outlook eventually. but it was along the south coast and in sussex, with some sunshine like this, that we had 18 degrees, compared with around six or seven along some north sea coasts. that was thanks to that wind off the north sea. and similar contrasts, really,

through the rest of this week. in general a lot of cloud around, and some further bursts of rain, too. now, the pressure pattern looks like this. low pressure to the south of the uk, some very wet weather again across iberia into southern france. higher pressure extending across the north from scandinavia, and that easterly wind. we have seen some heavy rain, though, across parts of the south overnight, and that will tend to head its way away from the south—west, keeping, though, a cloudier zone through wales, the midlands, east anglia, parts of southern england, and maybe a few showers towards the south coast, where we may get some warm sunshine again. sunshine across north—western parts of england, maybe northern ireland, the north and west of scotland, where we're sheltered from that easterly wind which keeps it cold and grey around some north sea coasts, and still pretty misty overnight. some further bursts of rain as we head towards the end of the night, into thursday morning, but nowhere particularly cold. and, if anything, that rain is tending to move its way a bit further north on thursday, so it should be drying off across much of wales

and the midlands. rain pushing northwards, patchy rain, across northern england into northern ireland, but turning wetter across south—east scotland and north—east england, and without that rain from the north sea, it really will feel pretty cold. get some sunshine, it's a bit warmer, especially in the south—east, although there could be one or two showers around. not a great deal of change as we head into thursday, from thursday into friday. again, lower pressure to the south, higher pressure to the north. an easterly wind, which is going to be stronger to the north of the humber, and this is where we've got most of the rain. so friday, again, it's the northern half of the uk that sees the wet weather. this time around, the rain could be wetter friday. watch out for some sharp showers in the south and south—west, but again some warmth in that sunshine when it comes through, but not everywhere getting it just yet. we start to see some changes as we head into the weekend. a big area of low pressure approaching from the atlantic, but it draws up more of a southerly wind as we head through the weekend. still got some rain, though, in north—eastern scotland. cold and wet here, but otherwise, more of a southerly. we're losing the onshore

wind for most of us, and that means some sunshine coming through, lifting the temperatures. one or two showers, but not as cold across south—east scotland and north—east england. and the higher temperatures move across the whole of the country as we head into the beginning of next week, as we get that southerly wind. most places will be dry, and there'll be some sunshine too. welcome to bbc news. broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is mike embley. our top stories: face to face with facebook‘s founder. mark zuckerberg apologises to a us senate committee for allowing personal data to be misused for political ends. we have made a lot of mistakes in running the company. i think it's pretty much impossible, i believe, to start a company in your dorm room and grow it to be the scale we're at now without making some mistakes. shaken by a suspected chemical attack in syria. the us, france and the uk consider joint military action against president assad. exercise extreme caution. the warning from air traffic controllers to airlines in the eastern mediterranean,

because of possible cruise missile strikes. and looted, but not lost forever. we find out how ethiopia is looking to recover its treasures.