Nick Leeson's latest ravings are nothing short of extraordinary.

In February 1995, Leeson single-handedly bankrupted the bank that financed the Napoleonic Wars, the Louisiana Purchase and the Erie Canal. Founded in 1762, Barings Bank was Britain's oldest merchant bank. It was also Queen Elizabeth's personal bank. Leeson, a trader in the Singapore office, was employed by Barings to profit from low risk arbitrage opportunities between derivatives contracts on the Singapore Mercantile Exchange and Japan's Osaka Exchange. He ended up making a series of bad bets that left a $1.4 billion chasm in Barings' balance sheet. All due to his unauthorized derivatives speculation.

Now when experienced traders place bad bets, they always cut their losses and get out. Not Leeson. He managed to avert suspicion by setting up a special account for hiding losses, while he posted profits in other trading accounts. In 1994, Leeson fabricated £28.55 million in false profits. The result: a stunning reputation as a star trader. While cranking up some staggering secret losses, he lived the life of a high roller, complete with a $9,000 per month apartment and earning a bonus of £130,000 on his salary of £50,000.

One month after the Queen's bank was declared bankrupt, Leeson was arrested in Frankfurt. He was placed on trial in Singapore and sentenced to six and a half years in jail. He was released in February 1999 on good behavior.

These days, Leeson makes a living from after-dinner speaking, cashing in on his notoriety. He also plays online poker. I guess there's no shortage of people out there who would like to take on a bad gambler.

And despite his crime that destroyed Barings, he still seems to have trouble admitting his failings. He now blames the bosses, claiming it was the bank's fault because they should have stopped him, according to news reports.

Hmm, there has to be a logical flaw there somewhere.

Significantly, his web site manages to turn his fraud and conviction into a selling point. Funny that.

Still, the Leeson story is a reminder that no matter how good a bank's controls are (and the Baring controls were pretty slack), there will always be traders who make losses and try to gamble their way out. And most bankers, even if they admit that things could go wrong in theory, would have trouble acknowledging that it would happen on their watch. Let alone admit they could be so stupid as to fall for a rogue trader's lies. Which means fraud will always happen and banks will always struggle to detect it. Let alone deal with it.

Come to think of it, maybe that's Leeson's biggest point.