Supreme Court to Rule on Interest Rate Rigging Cases

Supreme Court to Rule on Interest Rate Rigging Cases

The Supreme Court is set to make a crucial decision in the cases of two former City traders, Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, who were convicted of rigging interest rates. The ruling could potentially overturn their convictions and raise questions about miscarriages of justice.

Background

In 2015, Tom Hayes was the first banker to be jailed for rigging interest rates. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison after being accused by the US Department of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) of being a "ringmaster" in an international fraud conspiracy. Hayes was among 37 City traders prosecuted for manipulating Libor and Euribor, two key interest rate benchmarks used to set mortgage rates.

  • Nineteen people were convicted, with nine receiving custodial sentences.

New Evidence

New evidence has emerged suggesting that central bankers and government officials worldwide may have pressured banks into similar conduct on a larger scale. Despite this information coming to light while Hayes was serving his sentence, he remains convicted.

The SFO maintains that defendants were guilty of conspiracy to defraud but points out that previous attempts to overturn convictions at the Court of Appeal have been unsuccessful.

Trial and Defense

In an interview during his trial, Hayes maintained his innocence, stating, "I’m not guilty." However, Judge Jeremy Cooke disagreed and found him guilty of conspiracy to defraud. The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether his conviction should stand or be overturned.

Senior politicians have raised concerns about potential miscarriages of justice in these cases. Former Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP has stated that there may be more than one case where justice has not been served properly.

Hayes’ lawyer will argue that lower courts made mistakes when instructing jurors that any attempt to consider commercial interests when submitting answers was wrong. They will also claim that defendants did not break any laws or cause harm because they relied on official guidance issued by central banks—which did not exist at the time—as proof they had acted lawfully.

Conclusion

For both men involved in these cases, life has become akin to living through a Kafkaesque nightmare, where accusations seem impossible to comprehend without understanding the specifics of what they are accused of.

FacebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutubeFacebooktwitterlinkedinrssyoutube
FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *