Wed, 23 Jul 2025

Wed, 23 Jul 2025 City traders have rate-rigging convictions quashed

Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo who served time in jail have fought for 10 years to clear their names.
Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, two former City traders, had their convictions quashed by the Supreme Court after a 10-year fight. They were convicted in US and UK trials for manipulating interest rates used for loans between banks. The court ruled that the criminal trials of Mr. Hayes and Mr. Palombo were unfair and overturned their convictions. Mr. Hayes spent five and a half years in jail before being released in January 2021. He stated that his conviction "destroyed" his family and that it felt "surreal" to be cleared. He added that he missed most of his son's childhood and that the experience led to the end of his marriage. The Serious Fraud Office, which brought the original case against the traders, said it would not seek a retrial. The Libor scandal came to light in 2012 when banks artificially inflated interest rates to profit from trading and lower them to mask their troubles during the financial crisis. Mr. Palombo described the experience as "crazy" and stated that he didn't know how he felt right now, it was a mixture of relief and happiness. The Supreme Court's judgement represents a vindication for the traders who said they were victims of a series of miscarriages of justice. They argued they were wrongly prosecuted for normal commercial practices to appease public anger towards banks over the financial crisis. Conservative MP Sir David Davis stated that the judicial system needed a "shake-up" following Wednesday's judgement. He added that the scandal was a result of collusion between banks and government agencies. The remaining traders convicted of so-called interest rate "rigging" could also apply to have their convictions quashed, according to Elizabeth Robertson, a lawyer for one of the other convicted traders until 2016. Mark Johnson has fought to establish his innocence ever since he was convicted of fraud in 2017 and stated that the ruling raises questions about compensation and a possible inquiry.
  >>