LONDON, July 24: Barclays announced on Tuesday that a top lawyer-turned-banker would lead an independent review into the group's culture in the wake of the Libor rate-rigging scandal.

Anthony Salz, a former corporate lawyer who now sits as executive vice chairman at financial advisory group Rothschild, has agreed to head the review process, Barclays said in an official statement.

Salz is expected to publish his findings in Spring 2013, ahead of the bank's annual general meeting in June. He will report to Deputy Chairman Michael Rake, and a sub-committee of the Barclays board.

“Barclays has a real opportunity to use the events of the past weeks to drive a change in its values and practices, and I look forward to hearing views on the changes that should be made,” Salz said in the statement.

“I very much hope that this review will significantly assist Barclays in rebuilding trust and reaffirming its position as one of our leading institutions.”

Barclays had announced earlier this month that it would establish the independent review into its business practices after the rate-rigging affair.

The London-listed bank was recently fined £290 million ($451 million, 371 million euros) after admitting that it attempted to manipulate the Libor and Euribor rates between 2005 and 2009.

The scandal prompted the resignation of Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond and chairman Marcus Agius, and also sparked a fierce political debate over ethics in banking.

Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) is a flagship London instrument used as an interest benchmark throughout the world, while Euribor is the eurozone equivalent. The rates play a key role in global markets, affecting what banks, businesses and individuals pay to borrow money.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, the head of Britain's financial watchdog denied that regulators could have spotted bank rate-rigging, but admitted that regulation was “dangerous” and “flawed” in the run-up to the global financial crisis.

Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, said regulators made “big mistakes” and would have to share responsibility.—AFP