logo
Supreme Court to rule on cases of traders jailed over rate-rigging

Supreme Court to rule on cases of traders jailed over rate-rigging

Tom Hayes, a former Citigroup and UBS trader, was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010.
He is challenging his conviction, as is Carlo Palombo, an ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, who was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009.
The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March last year.
They then took their cases to the Supreme Court.
The Serious Fraud Office opposed the men's appeals (Alamy/PA)
The panel of five justices was also asked to look at whether the cheapest rate needs to be submitted, or if it can be one selected from a range of potential borrowing rates.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) opposed the appeals.
Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge, Lloyd-Jones and Leggatt, and Lady Simler are expected to hand down their judgment at 9.30am on Wednesday.
At a hearing in March, lawyers for the men said the trial judge had wrongly directed the jury, and injected 'confusion' into their cases.
Adrian Darbishire KC, for Hayes, told the court that there was a 'marked failure to respect the limits of the role of a judge in a jury trial', adding that 'part of the point of juries is that they are not judges – they are representative of society', and their views are sought in 'preference' to that of a judge.
In written submissions, Tim Owen KC, for Palombo, said the trial judge's directions to the jury 'failed to identify the correct issue for the jury' and 'injected confusion into the terms of the indictment'.
Mr Owen said dishonesty was a 'question of fact for the jury to assess', and not 'a matter to be shaped by legal directions'.
In written submissions Sir James Eadie KC, representing the SFO, said the issues identified in Hayes's case go 'far beyond the issues arising from the certified questions', and that his case 'repeatedly mischaracterises the indicted offence'.
He said: 'If as a matter of law the Libor definition does not permit trading advantage to be taken into account, it is still necessary for the prosecution to prove and the jury to find that the defendant acted dishonestly in making the submission.
'In this case it is clear that the issue of dishonesty was left to the jury.'
The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages.
It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions.
Hayes, who has maintained his innocence, spent five and a half years in prison and was released in January 2021.
Palombo had denied acting dishonestly but was jailed for four years in April 2019 after a retrial.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scots soldier charged with murdering wife during kayak trip seeking bail
Scots soldier charged with murdering wife during kayak trip seeking bail

STV News

time5 hours ago

  • STV News

Scots soldier charged with murdering wife during kayak trip seeking bail

A former Scottish army major who has been charged with killing his wife during a kayaking trip on a lake is seeking bail. Graeme Davidson was arrested and charged in May with the murder of his wife, Jacqueline, who drowned during a kayaking trip at Lake Samsonvale in November 2020. He has since launched a bail application in which the 56-year-old claims they weren't wearing life jackets because rats had eaten them. He is further accused of fraud offences over claims on his wife's life insurance policies worth more than $1 million following what police originally determined to be an accidental death. Davidson applied for bail in the Supreme Court last week, with a hearing continuing in Brisbane on Wednesday. During a bail application in the Brisbane Supreme Court, defence barrister Craig Eberhardt said it's a 'very circumstantial case that he might have killed her … not that he did'. The couple were kayaking on the lake when police were told the woman had fallen into the water and drowned. She was brought back to shore, where bystanders and paramedics attempted to revive her by performing CPR. Jacqueline was pronounced dead at the scene, and it was ruled there was no evidence of substantial bruising or of a medical episode. Police allege Davidson's motive was linked to his attempts to collect life insurance claims following his wife's death. Court documents now reveal that he claimed a $264,000 life insurance payout just 18 days after Jacqueline's death. Davidson was seen burning documents in his back garden following his wife's death. At the bail application on Wednesday, the Brisbane Supreme Court also heard Davidson had texted a friend while living in Thailand, where he had moved and remarried after his wife drowned. The Crown has a witness statement recalling a conversation about three-and-a-half years prior to the alleged murder, about a man whose wife left him, moving to Thailand and taking part of his pension. Davidson allegedly commented: 'I'd kill her and move to Thailand too.' A comment which is 'not that sinister' in context, his lawyer argued, but rather unreliable hearsay. Detectives believe that a breakdown in the couple's relationship may have contributed to the incident. The court previously heard Davidson had an affair in 2019, and Ms Davidson had confided in a friend about wanting to separate from him. He remains in custody, and Justice Sullivan will decide on Friday whether to grant bail to Davidson. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country

Brazil judge eases Jair Bolsonaro house arrest to allow family visits
Brazil judge eases Jair Bolsonaro house arrest to allow family visits

The Guardian

time5 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Brazil judge eases Jair Bolsonaro house arrest to allow family visits

A Brazilian supreme court judge has eased the terms of Jair Bolsonaro's house arrest, allowing the far-right former president to receive visits from family members without prior judicial approval. The former paratrooper turned populist has been under house arrest since Monday, when Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the measure on the grounds that Bolsonaro had allegedly violated court orders. In his initial ruling, Moraes permitted Bolsonaro to receive only his lawyers and the family members he lives with at a mansion in Brasília: his wife, Michelle, his daughter and his stepdaughter. All other relatives were required to seek judicial authorisation, a restriction that has now been lifted. 'I authorise visits from the detainee's sons, daughters-in-law, granddaughters and grandsons without prior notice,' Moraes wrote, stressing that all visitors must still comply with the ban on using mobile phones or taking photos and videos of the former president. Bolsonaro also remains barred from contacting his son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a congressman who has been in the United States since March and claims to have played a key role in persuading Donald Trump to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports – a move the US president justified as a response to what he called a 'witch-hunt' against Bolsonaro. Two weeks ago, Moraes ordered Bolsonaro to wear an electronic ankle tag to prevent a potential escape attempt. In justifying last Monday's house arrest, the justice argued that Bolsonaro had flouted a court order prohibiting the use of social media – including by third parties – by appearing via video call at Sunday rallies, a recording of which was later posted by one of his politician sons, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. Although legal experts broadly agree that the case accusing Bolsonaro of leading a coup attempt in 2022 is strong, the house arrest order has sparked a more contentious debate. Some have defended the judge's decision, arguing he had been 'patient' with Bolsonaro's repeated breaches of court rulings. But other legal scholars argue that it is unclear what precise violation Bolsonaro committed, noting that he was not explicitly banned from speaking at public events. In response to Moraes's latest ruling, politicians aligned with Bolsonaro have blocked congressional proceedings, demanding that lawmakers vote to impeach the supreme court justice and grant amnesty to the hundreds accused of involvement in the alleged coup attempt – including the ransacking of Brasília on 8 January 2023. The case against the 70-year-old politician is at an advanced stage and a verdict is expected as early as next month, with Bolsonaro facing a potential sentence of more than 40 years in prison.

Culture row risks Edinburgh International Book Festival
Culture row risks Edinburgh International Book Festival

The Herald Scotland

time7 hours ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Culture row risks Edinburgh International Book Festival

The world leading Edinburgh International Book Festival is not new to criticism. It has been condemned in recent years over the sponsorship from Baillie Gifford, an investment firm in the city with links to major fossil fuel profits. Book festival organisers eventually succumbed to pressure and dropped the investment firm as a sponsor last year. But that would not be enough to stave off a new culture row. 2025 was going to be no different for the festival with a new controversy emerging and for the festival's director Jenny Niven, it is one that could be a disaster for the renowned event. Scotland's culture sector has been facing the "perfect storm" in terms of funding, increased costs and shrinking revenue. The book festival has not been immune to that. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the event initially struggled to bounce back with falling ticket sales and a sponsorship crisis. Ms Niven told The Herald's arts correspondent Brian Ferguson this week that she wanted to facilitate "productive" conversations instead of "polarised" debates. She has faced a significant level of criticism for her decision not to book the authors of the gender critical collection 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht' and Orwell Prize winner and social commentator Darren McGarvey. Read more: Ms Niven is right to say that it would be impossible to book every author who submitted literature - and it would be extremely difficult to represent all views. However, clearly her comments have inadvertently created a polarised debate on the future of culture in Scotland's capital. Ms Niven told The Herald: "With subjects that are particularly challenging or divisive, I think we need to make sure we're exploring them from the perspective of books that allow you to have a good robust conversation that is not about the personal, but is about the bigger picture issue. We don't always have those books in front of us." She also said her festival was absolutely not shying away from "difficult" conversations. But the authors who argue they have been "excluded" from the festival clearly feel their views, and their art, have been stifled in favour of less controversial opinions. At the same time, former first minister Nicola Sturgeon will debut her new memoir in a sold out show. There is no doubt that the debate around single-sex spaces and transgender rights has become polarised. But literature is intended to facilitate debate and differing opinions, not censor it. If the festival is not careful, it risks dimming what was once a vibrant and engaging cultural event in the city. It has become almost impossible to escape the self-ID debate, particularly with high profile employment tribunals and Supreme Court judgments. Given that it can be divisive, it seems like a mistake to prohibit these views from being debated in the open, and away from social media. But there's another glaring problem with it. After it dropped Baillie Gifford as its main sponsor, the festival, unsurprisingly, experienced the financial drawbacks. Since then, Edinburgh's International Book Festival has received a £300,000 lifeline fund from the Scottish Government to plug a shortfall created by cutting ties with the investment firm. That means that the event's public funding has doubled in a year to around £820,000 - a record sum. Should the recipients of significant levels of public funding be able to be so selective in the authors it books for the festival? Whether you like it or not, the organisers can, but it is a slippery slope that opens the event up to stringent criticism. In the process, the purpose of Edinburgh's International Book Festival risks being diminished at a crucial time for the country's culture sector.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store