The Financial Times reported statements by British judge Robert Jay that all Qatari individuals and entities mentioned in the Qatar-Barclays case should be included on the official list of defendants for being dishonest, just like the four executives being tried in the case.

Mr Justice Jay intervened in a jury trial at Southwark Crown Court on Thursday to spell out that the logic behind the Serious Fraud Office’s case against John Varley, the former chief executive of Barclays, and three other top bankers, rests on the allegation that side deals struck with the prime minister and sovereign-wealth fund of Qatar at the same time as two emergency capital calls in 2008 were shams.

“A sham agreement is one that does not mean what it says,” Mr Justice Jay said on the seventh day of trial. “It requires two parties.

“The counterparty to the [advisory services agreements] was a Qatari entity. The logic of the prosecution case that these defendants were dishonest must be that one or more individuals comprising or connected with the Qatari entity was equally dishonest in the criminal sense. There’s no getting around that.”

The bank struck two ASAs with Qatar for £322m, purportedly for strategic help in the Middle East.