Rate 'rigging' traders say they were scapegoated - now the Supreme Court will decide
The Supreme Court is poised to rule on the cases of two former City traders jailed for rigging interest rates, amid concerns raised by senior politicians that there may have been a series of miscarriages of justice.
If the traders are successful in their application - which is opposed by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) - it could lead to the quashing of all remaining convictions secured in nine criminal trials.
Tom Hayes, a former trader at the Swiss bank UBS, became the first banker to be jailed for "rigging" interest rates in August 2015.
He was accused at the age of 35 by the United States Department of Justice and the Serious Fraud Office of being a "ringmaster" of an international fraud conspiracy and sentenced to 14 years in jail.
Together with former Barclays trader Carlo Palombo, he is now awaiting a crucial Supreme Court judgement.
Hayes and Palombo were among 37 City traders prosecuted for "manipulating" the interest rate benchmarks Libor and Euribor, which track the cost of borrowing cash between the banks and are used to set the interest rates on millions of mortgages and commercial loans.
In criminal trials on both sides of the Atlantic from 2015 to 2019, 19 were convicted of conspiracy to defraud and nine were sent to jail.
As they served time, evidence emerged that central bankers and government officials across the world, including a top adviser at 10 Downing Street at the time, had pressured banks such as theirs to engage in very similar conduct to what they were jailed for – but on a much greater scale.
No central banker or government official was prosecuted.
Then, soon after they were released after serving their full jail tariffs, a US appeal court decided such conduct wasn't a crime after all; nor even against any rules.
The US Department of Justice revoked the charges against Tom Hayes, and the US courts then threw out all similar convictions.
Yet in the UK, they remain convicted criminals.
The Serious Fraud Office, which prosecuted the cases, says the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to defraud and points to a number of previous unsuccessful attempts to overturn convictions at the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court's now being asked to decide if judges were wrong to tell juries their conduct was unlawful.
If it does so, it could lead to the overturning of all remaining convictions, throwing a global 17-year scandal into reverse.
It's also likely to prompt renewed calls for a public inquiry into evidence of much larger interest rate "rigging" – ordered from the top of the financial system by central banks and governments worldwide.
This is the first time the cases have reached the Supreme Court following public pressure from senior politicians, including former shadow chancellor John McDonnell and former Brexit Secretary David Davis.
They have told the BBC they're concerned the traders have been "scapegoated" in a scandalous series of miscarriages of justice that runs "deeper than the Post Office".
They want a public inquiry.
What the FTSE 100 or the Dow Jones are to share prices, Libor is to interest rates: an index, updated every day, that tracked the cost of borrowing cash between the banks from 1986 until 2024.
Each day at 11am, 16 banks across London would answer a question: at what interest rate could they borrow money?
Before answering, traders on the banks' cash desks would look at the range of interest rates at which other banks on the market were offering to lend cash, which normally differed from each other by just one or two hundredths of a percentage point (e.g. HSBC offering to lend funds at 3.14%, Bank of China at 3.16%, JP Morgan at 3.15%).
Each bank would then select a rate from that range of offers to submit as their answer.
An average would then be taken to get the official benchmark, Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate).
A similar process was used to get Euribor, the equivalent of Libor for euros.
The evidence against Hayes and Palombo were messages they had sent to the cash traders asking them to select a 'high' or 'low' rate from that range, depending on what might benefit their banks' trades – which went up or down in value linked to Libor (or Euribor).
Their requests might make no difference to the average; or they might nudge it very slightly in their bank's favour – up or down by no more than one eighth of one hundredth of a percentage point (0.00125%).
But it was seen as worth the effort of making the requests, which had been industry practice for years, in case it might help their bank make more money or lose less.
Prosecutors alleged Hayes was dishonestly seeking to manipulate the Libor rate to benefit the bank's trading positions and therefore his bonuses while "cheating" others trading on the market, "motivated by pure greed".
The SFO accused Palombo of being a "crook" and a "cheat" who had "left his moral compass at home".
The traders protested that any potential gains to their bonuses from a nudge to Libor of a maximum 0.00125% were far too little to motivate a criminal conspiracy.
What they saw as the clerical task of choosing 'high' or 'low' rates based on the commercial interests of the bank - was merely what every bank had done since the 1980s, long before they started work.
But according to the SFO, it was interest rate "manipulation" that amounted to evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud.
At his 2015 trial, Hayes said he had not asked for any false answers to be given to the Libor question – but merely tried to ensure his bank selected a commercially advantageous rate from the range of accurate interest rates at which it could genuinely borrow.
But the judge, Mr Justice Jeremy Cooke, decided that any attempt to take into account commercial interests when submitting a Libor rate was "self-evidently" unlawful.
Sentencing Hayes to 14 years, he dismissed the argument that it was City practice.
"The fact that others were doing the same as you is no excuse, nor is the fact that your immediate managers saw the benefit of what you were doing and condoned and embraced it, if not encouraged it.[…] The conduct involved here must be marked out as dishonest and wrong and a message sent to the world of banking accordingly."
The defendants say court rulings retrospectively criminalised not only their actions years before, but also those of senior bankers and civil servants, much higher up the financial pecking order, who had sought to influence Libor on a much greater scale.
Audio recordings, documents and data uncovered by the BBC indicate that in the 2008 financial crisis, governments and central banks from the Bank of England to the Banque de France and Banca d'Italia pressured banks to push Libor and Euribor down artificially in order to make real interest rates appear lower than they were and quell speculation about banks' solvency - a highly commercial motive.
The difference, though, was that whereas the traders were asking for shifts of one hundredth of a percentage point, the central banks sought moves up to 50 times the size, giving rates that were obviously false, far away from the range of interest rates where cash was being borrowed or lent on the money markets.
In a BBC Radio 4 podcast series exposing the scandal, The Lowball Tapes, Palombo asks despairingly, "If that's not criminal, how can I be a criminal?"
Contemporary emails and phone transcripts, official interviews by the FBI and first-hand accounts of witnesses point to the involvement of top officials at Downing Street and the Treasury.
They were not shown to the juries at the traders' trials.
Palombo describes his life since being prosecuted as a "Kafka nightmare" where he could barely understand the accusations made against him, with no sense of having done anything even vaguely wrong.
To him and to Hayes, one of the most serious implications is that what happened to them could happen to anyone in the workplace - to them, if normal commercial practice can be retroactively criminalised, no-one can be sure that the daily tasks they're currently engaged in at work won't, in years to come, be condemned and prosecuted.
The Treasury has said it did not seek to influence individual bank Libor submissions.
The Bank of England has said Libor was not regulated at the time. The Banque de France, Banca d'Italia and the Federal Reserve have declined to comment.
In the traders' cases the Court of Appeal, led by judges including Lord Chief Justice John Thomas and Lord Justice Nigel Davis, blocked the path to the Supreme Court five times from 2015 to 2019.
In 2021, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) initially said it would turn down Hayes's application.
But then in January 2022 a US appeal court fully acquitted two former Deutsche Bank traders, Matt Connolly and Gavin Black, saying prosecutors had failed to produce any evidence they had asked for false rates to be submitted at which their banks could not borrow.
All US convictions for 'rigging' Libor were subsequently thrown out.
The pair had initially been convicted in 2018 on similar charges to Hayes and Palombo.
The following year, the CCRC was persuaded to change its mind.
In 2024, Court of Appeal judges certified, for the first time in these cases, that there was a point of law of general public importance at stake, finally clearing the path to the Supreme Court.
Two months ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments that judges in the lower courts had told juries that Hayes and Palombo's requests were wrong as a matter of law – when it should have been left as a matter of fact for the jury to decide.
The SFO told the court the defendants didn't challenge the jury directions at the time.
Hayes and Palombo now await the Supreme Court's judgement.
Jailed bankers appeal 'must' go to top court
Jailed bankers appeal rate 'rigging' convictions
Warning jailed bankers ruling could hit loan rate
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Today in History: Frederick Douglass becomes the first Black candidate nominated for president
Today is Monday, June 23, the 174th day of 2025. There are 191 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 23, 1888, abolitionist Frederick Douglass received one vote from the Kentucky delegation at the Republican convention in Chicago, making him the first Black candidate to have his name placed in nomination for U.S. president. Vintage Chicago Tribune: How Chicago became the go-to city for political conventionsAlso on this date: In 1931, aviators Wiley Post and Harold Gatty took off from Roosevelt Field in New York on an around-the-world flight that lasted eight days and 15 hours. In 1947, the Senate joined the House in overriding President Harry S. Truman's veto of the Taft-Hartley Act, designed to limit the power of organized labor. In 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser was elected president of Egypt. In 1969, Warren E. Burger was sworn in as chief justice of the United States by his predecessor, Earl Warren. In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Education Amendments of 1972, including Title IX, which barred discrimination on the basis of sex for 'any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.' In 1985, all 329 people on an Air India Boeing 747 were killed when it crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near Ireland after a bomb planted by Sikh separatists exploded onboard. In 1992, mob boss John Gotti was sentenced to life after being found guilty of murder, racketeering and other charges. (Gotti would die in prison in 2002.) In 2016, Britain voted to leave the European Union after a bitterly divisive referendum campaign, toppling Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the drive to remain in the bloc. In 2020, the Louisville police department fired an officer involved in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor more than three months earlier, saying Brett Hankison showed 'extreme indifference to the value of human life' when he fired 10 rounds into her apartment. In 2022, in a major expansion of gun rights, the Supreme Court said Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Today's Birthdays: Author Richard Bach is 89. Computer scientist Vint Cerf is 82. Actor Bryan Brown is 78. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is 77. Musician Glenn Danzig is 70. Former 'American Idol' judge Randy Jackson is 69. Actor Frances McDormand is 68. Golf Hall of Famer Colin Montgomerie is 62. Actor Selma Blair is 53. French soccer manager and former player Zinedine Zidane is 53. Actor Joel Edgerton is 51. Singer-songwriter Jason Mraz is 48. Rapper Memphis Bleek is 47. Football Hall of Famer LaDainian Tomlinson is 46. Actor Melissa Rauch ('The Big Bang Theory') is 45.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government files appeal after Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered released by federal judge
The government on Sunday appealed a federal judge's order to release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial on human smuggling charges, another chapter in the saga of the Maryland father who had been erroneously deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration admitted having mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia in March, and the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. Upon his return this month, though, Abrego Garcia was hit with federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal immigrants for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for monetary gain. He pleaded not guilty. 'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' U.S. Magistrate Barbara D. Holmes of the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in her opinion Sunday. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.' The government quickly filed a request to stay the order and keep Abrego Garcia in custody, a filing that made it clear it would again subject him to deportation proceedings. The government argued that a stay, or pause, would allow the court 'to conduct meaningful review' of custody ahead of the judge's ruling on a separate court filing. 'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' Justice Department lawyers said in request for a stay Sunday. In concluding Abrego Garcia should be released pending trial, with certain conditions, Holmes faulted the government for its language surrounding the case and indicated he has been so far denied ordinary due process that might come to any defendant. She noted that government lawyers have used the terms "human smuggling" and "human trafficking" interchangeably, though the former refers to helping someone willfully enter a country, while the latter refers to bringing someone to a country against their will. She also noted that the government accused Abrego Garcia of being "involved" in transporting a minor as part of the alleged smuggling — without solid and specific evidence of such. Holmes set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss terms of Abrego Garcia's release and ordered federal authorities to produce him for the event. She held out little hope that Abrego Garcia would actually be free, however, noting that immigration authorities were likely to detain him upon release because he is alleged to be in the United States without permission. "Either Abrego will remain in the custody of the Attorney General or her designee pending trial if detained under the Bail Reform Act or he will likely remain in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') custody subject to anticipated removal proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of this Court," she wrote in her decision. "That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise," Holmes said. This article was originally published on
USA Today
13 hours ago
- USA Today
Judge denies government attempt to keep Abrego Garcia in detention; hearing set on release
A federal judge in Tennessee has ruled that a Salvadoran migrant at the heart of the debate over President Donald Trump's border security policies must be released from jail while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes ruled in Nashville June 22 that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, cannot remain in detention, denying the federal government's request. The judge set a June 25 hearing in Nashville to determine the conditions of Abrego Garcia's release. Abrego Garcia was thrust into the national spotlight when the Trump administration mistakenly deported him to El Salvador in March in violation of a court order. Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker and father of three who had lived in Maryland for a decade before he was deported, has pleaded not guilty to charges he transported undocumented immigrants for financial gain. Prosecutors had argued that Abrego Garcia is a member of the violent gang MS-13 and could flee or intimidate other witnesses if he is released while awaiting trial. Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and had contended that the charges don't justify holding him in jail. Abrego Garcia's deportation in March turned him into a key player in the debate over Trump's hardline immigration policy. Government lawyers acknowledged in court records that he had been erroneously deported – an 'administrative error' was the official explanation – even though an immigration judge's court order had barred his deportation back to native land. A federal judge in Maryland ordered the administration to facilitate his return. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, but officials resisted bringing him back until he was indicted in May. The human smuggling charges are tied to a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022. Police say Abrego Garcia was driving a Chevrolet Suburban with nine other passengers when he was pulled over for speeding on Interstate 40 about 80 miles east of Nashville. Police questioned Abrego Garcia and his passengers but let them go without filing any charges. A federal grand jury in Nashville indicted Abrego Garcia on the human smuggling charges on May 21 while he was still being held in a prison in El Salvador. The indictment alleges that, from 2016 through 2025, Abrego Garcia and other unnamed people conspired to bring undocumented migrants into the United States from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and elsewhere, passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas. Prosecutors say Abrego Garcia's role in the conspiracy was typically transporting people once they were within the United States, typically picking them up in the Houston area. If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each person transported. Prosecutors allege he made more than 100 trips. Following his indictment, the Trump administration flew Abrego Garcia back to the United States to face the charges even though it had insisted for weeks that it had no authority to bring him back. Follow Michael Collins on X @mcollinsNEWS.
