I don't have any knowledge of UK financial laws but I don't really understand how getting foreign investors to buy stock in your bank constitutes fraud.
Now, of course, being a little cynical here, a lot of financial laws are intended more as a justification to allow the government to steal people's money as opposed to make any kind of rational legal sense. But even given that, I found the linked story to be unintelligible.
Generally speaking, at least the United States, fraud is when you trick somebody out of their money by reneging on a guarantee or implicit understanding. For fraud to exist, there must be a victim who is tricked. Who is that in the Barclay's case? The shareholders? I don't get that since the shareholders were not tricked. If a company does something that harms shareholders, that might be malfeasance, but it is not "fraud".