SHELL, we were told by 
				the Financial Services Authority last summer, was guilty of 
				“unprecedented misconduct”. For five years, from 1998 to 2003, 
				the company had repeatedly misled shareholders over its oil and 
				gas reserves. It was so culpable that the regulator felt it had 
				no choice but to fine it a then-record Ł17 million. 
				Yet we are now 
				asked to believe that no one running the company at the time was 
				actually to blame. The FSA yesterday dropped its 
				investigation into and proceedings against the former chairman, 
				Sir Philip Watts, and other unnamed individuals. After an 
				18-month inquiry the regulator’s enforcement arm had assembled a 
				case against the individuals. But its Regulatory Decisions 
				Committee, which makes the final judgment, was unconvinced. Or 
				was it simply unwilling? For years the FSA has banged the drum 
				about how it would hold senior figures to account when companies 
				broke the rules. Yet time and again, the FSA finds companies 
				guilty of serious offences while failing to secure individual 
				scalps. The Citigroup bond trading scandal ended with all the 
				traders who had been involved reinstated and no senior figure so 
				much as formally reprimanded by the authorities. 
				
				The AIT market abuse case, which ended with two main board 
				directors being jailed for deceiving shareholders, was a rare 
				exception. Too often those ultimately responsible escape 
				justice. 
				In the Shell case, 
				the FSA had plenty of evidence of a conspiracy at the highest 
				level against the interests of shareholders. The company’s own 
				investigation unearthed compelling e-mail evidence, not least 
				former exploration director Walter van de Vijver’s infamous 
				complaint that he was “becoming sick and tired about lying about 
				the extent of our reserves issues”. 
				Shell’s deceit 
				went back many years. As early as 1998, when the company was 
				under the chairmanship of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, a paper was 
				produced under the title Creating Value through 
				Entrepreneurial Management of Hydrocarbon Resource Values. 
				That may not have been a blueprint for inflating the value of 
				reserves but it was certainly an ominous title. Sir Mark is now 
				a pillar of other British boardrooms, chairman of Anglo American 
				and a director of HSBC. 
				Yesterday’s 
				decision looks all the more curious because the FSA spent the 
				first half of the year fighting Sir Philip in the Financial 
				Services and Markets Tribunal for the right to pursue him. Why 
				bother if the case was not looking sound? And it looks downright 
				embarrassing that the FSA official who fought Sir Philip, former 
				acting enforcement head David Mayhew, will later this month wave 
				goodbye to the FSA and walk straight into a highly paid job at 
				Herbert Smith — the firm advising Sir Philip.