The BBC story seems more interested in the fact that the SocGen trader was not acting alone, but I find this part the most revealing:

The bank’s management was accused of being “negligent” in not identifying the problem, the report said.

It also found that Mr Kerviel’s direct supervisor was inexperienced, with insufficient support to do his job properly.

“The fraud was facilitated, or its detection delayed, by supervisory weaknesses over the trader and the market activities checking,” it said.

“The trader’s hierarchy, which constituted the first control level, showed itself negligent in the supervision of his activities.”

Mr Kerviel’s supervisor “showed inappropriate tolerance to the positions taken”, it added.

Blaming this on his immediate supervisor is a lot like blaming it all on the perpetrator himself. Surely the controls for this kind of error should be visible at the highest levels. The consequences have been devastating, which suggests security information and event management at SocGen were not integrated into an executive’s view.