Supreme Court to review appeal on Libor and Euribor manipulation

Former traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo are appealing their convictions for manipulating financial benchmarks in a case that challenges the definition of market manipulation. The UK’s highest court heard arguments that the logic behind their convictions created a “thought crime”, calling into question the prosecution’s handling of the case.

The scandal first came to light in 2012 when it was discovered that traders had been rigging key lending rates between banks to benefit their trading positions. This controversy resulted in banks and brokers paying significant fines to regulators worldwide. Hayes, then 45 years old, became the central figure in the scandal when he became the first person to be convicted in August 2015.

Hayes and Palombo, who were both sent to prison for their involvement in rate manipulation, are seeking to clear their names in the Supreme Court. The case has attracted significant attention as it examines the methods used by the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting such offenses.

Critics of the convictions argue that the definition of market manipulation used in the case has blurred the lines between legitimate trading practices and criminal behavior. The concept of a “thought crime” suggests that the traders may have been penalized for their intentions rather than their actions, creating a legal gray area that could have far-reaching implications for future cases.

As the appeal proceedings continue, the legal community is closely watching the outcome of this case. The implications of the court’s decision could impact the way future cases of market manipulation are prosecuted and may lead to a reassessment of existing laws and regulations regarding financial benchmarks.

The appeal by Hayes and Palombo raises important questions about the nature of financial regulation and the boundaries of permissible behavior in the financial industry. By challenging their convictions, the traders are seeking clarity on what constitutes market manipulation and whether their actions were truly unlawful.

Ultimately, the outcome of this appeal will not only determine the fate of the individuals involved but could also shape the future landscape of financial regulation and enforcement. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be closely watched by industry participants, regulators, and legal experts alike, as it has the potential to set significant precedents in the realm of market manipulation and financial crime prosecution.