Perhaps he was a scapegoat for the bank’s actions. The loss was too much for the bank to accept responsibility for so they made a patsy agreement with the suspect and he went away.
“Perhaps he was a scapegoat for the bank’s actions. The loss was too much for the bank to accept responsibility for so they made a patsy agreement with the suspect and he went away.”
A possibility, though a remote one I think. Also possible is that his activity involved others who benefited from it while his profits were running but wanted to duck out when their bad bet blew up in their face. This doesn’t mean that top management was aware of what was going on, but it does suggest that (no matter how careful the risk management is) misbehavior of underlings can happen. It IS a bit mysterious why he was doing this, given that no one has figured out how he might personally benefit from it. Also suspicious is his “sudden disappearance” afterwards.