Tom Hayes: Winning Supreme Court challenge is an incredible feeling
In 2015 he was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010.
Speaking after his convictions were overturned, Mr Hayes, who arrived at court wearing a Kenny Rogers The Gambler t-shirt, said he was not 'bitter' about his experience.
He told a press conference: 'I always believed that it would happen. I always had confidence it would happen.'
Mr Hayes added: 'This wasn't a gamble for me. My trial judge called me a gambler.
'So I decided today I would wear a T-shirt, a Kenny Rogers Gambler T-shirt.'
Mr Hayes added: 'I'm really very grateful to the Supreme Court. We've had a consistent set of decisions from every other tribunal, and they were all to lose, and I got asked at my last appeal how I felt after we lost, and I said: 'Well, ask me when we've won.'
'Because I knew how it feels to lose, and today I'm learning how it feels to have won, and it's an incredible feeling.'
He added that going to prison, losing all his money, and missing out on five years of his son's life has taught him not to value 'things'.
Mr Hayes also said he became a Christian in prison, where he used to have the 'angry test, because the people who were angry, were innocent, because they were so annoyed about and frustrated with the miscarriage of justice they'd gone through'.
He said: 'I'm a better person today than when I went into prison. My faith really helps me overcome a lot of the anger to see myself through that sentence.
'I had a lot of stuff. Money enables you to buy more stuff and more stuff on top of that and your goal is to require more stuff again.
'But when all your stuff is taken away from you, and then your liberty is taken away from you, and your dignity gets taken away from you, and your family gets taken away from you and your children get taken away from you, what are you left with, and do you miss the stuff?
'When I got to my open prison, being able to walk on the grass barefoot and see the stars in the sky was such an amazing thing.
'Going on a train, crossing the road, and then when I got released after five-and-a-half years into Covid, walking around Regent's Park in the snow and hearing a lion's roar, those were just amazing things for me, it was so powerful.
'I've really learned what you should value in your life as a result of what's happened to me. I'm not chasing stuff anymore.'
Mr Hayes said he did not know what he would do next, but that suddenly the 'vista of freedom and choice' had opened up to him, and he would like to go and live near a large body of water.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economist
10 minutes ago
- Economist
Blighty: Why Corbyn's comeback matters
Summer fetes show there is still hope for the English village Crime has become more complex. The police have not kept up Our survey finds that Britons are pessimistic about the country's cohesion The police are better; the politicians are worse The LIBOR saga reflects badly on the courts Compromise rarely leads to contentment. But it nearly always leads to costs
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: UBS steps up contingency planning as it tries to tame Swiss rules, sources say
ZURICH/HONG KONG, July 29 (Reuters) - UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab is briefing senior staff that the need to examine moving its HQ from Switzerland has grown since the government proposed new capital rules, a source with knowledge of the matter said, while another pointed to London as a favourite alternative. The Swiss government proposed reform measures in June that envisage that UBS - as Switzerland's sole remaining global bank with a balance sheet about double the size of the economy - should capitalise its foreign subsidiaries by 100% rather than 60% currently, to cover potential losses abroad. That could mean the bank has to carry an extra $24 billion in capital. A review by UBS looking at contingency planning has concluded that London is one of the best options for an alternative location should the bank try and move, one of the sources said. Britain has similar rules on foreign subsidiaries but a third source said authorities outside Switzerland may show more flexibility. Two sources familiar with the bank's thinking said UBS was also warning internally that it could be vulnerable to a future takeover by a foreign rival if it were weakened by the rules. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions are confidential. UBS, which is due to release second quarter earnings on Wednesday, has intensified lobbying with parliament since June 6 to push back against the proposed capital changes, two lawmakers said. Even insiders at the Zurich-based wealth manager say UBS - whose leadership argues it came to the rescue when it bought Credit Suisse in a government-engineered deal - does not intend to leave Switzerland. All agree that UBS's principal objective is to soften the regulations. Even so, UBS executives think the government's demands mean that if no compromise is reached, it may need to respond radically, one source familiar with the lender's thinking said, pointing to a possible relocation. UBS told Reuters it would engage in the consultation process for the new rules while evaluating appropriate measures "to address the negative effects that extreme regulations would have on its shareholders." Its Swissness was a "differentiating element", it said, adding that UBS - which has been running an advertising campaign themed "A bank like Switzerland" - wanted to be based in Switzerland "leveraging the mutually beneficial relationship." Switzerland's finance ministry declined to comment on what it said were internal UBS decisions. FINMA, the Swiss regulator, declined to comment. UBS earlier this year started warning about the possibility of shifting its headquarters, but the latest deliberations are reported here for the first time and highlight a political tug-of-war between UBS, led by CEO Sergio Ermotti, and the government about what is best for the bank and for Switzerland. Representatives for the UK Treasury, Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority declined to comment. Swiss Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said in June that the new rules would make it more costly for the bank to grow abroad but that she hoped UBS would stay in Switzerland. As for any large bank, relocation would be costly and difficult and industry insiders say Switzerland's global renown as a wealth management centre has been central to UBS' business model. Pressure is, however, growing on the bank. UBS's shares have underperformed rivals, gaining 7% in 2025 against the wider sector's 37% (.SX7P), opens new tab as investors fear the new rules will impede shareholder payouts and growth prospects. One UBS shareholder, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters it would be difficult for the bank to attract investors if the capital rules talks dragged on for three or four years without the bank making progress in softening them. The ball "is in UBS's court" to find a solution, the investor said. Under the proposed capital requirements, UBS's Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio, a key measure of bank capital, of 14.3% could reach 17%. That would put it above rivals like JPMorgan (JPM.N), opens new tab at 15.8%, Morgan Stanley (MS.N), opens new tab at 15.7%, and Goldman Sachs (GS.N), opens new tab at 15.3%, the government estimated in June. Outside experts say like-for-like comparisons are difficult. Switzerland's parliament is not due to receive a draft law on the rules until well into 2026. But UBS executives want to reassure investors by early 2026 they can soften the final legislation, two of the sources said. If it cannot placate investors coming into 2026, UBS may try to repatriate more than the $5 billion in capital it already plans to return to its parent bank, which could eventually fund payouts, analysts say. UBS's efforts have already yielded fruit. Last month a parliamentary committee backed a motion to make the government send all the new banking rules to parliament instead of issuing some directly. "We have to find the right balance between capital that minimises risks but also maintains UBS's competitiveness," said Beat Walti, the lawmaker who proposed the amendment.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Trump administration set to scrap landmark finding that regulates carbon emission
The Trump administration is set to announce a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government's ability to combat climate change. Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards. The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally make the announcement at an event in Indiana alongside Governor Mike Braun on Tuesday Donald Trump has long argued that climate regulations stifle US economic growth, and on his first day back in office in January ordered that the EPA submit recommendations "on the legality and continuing applicability" of the Endangerment Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" - meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act. In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk. The decision forms the core of the federal government's authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse in an episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion".Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said. In a previous statement on reconsidering the findings in March, Zeldin said that "the Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas."The new draft rule from the EPA will now go undergo a public comment period before being subject to an interagency review. If it is successful, the rule will immediately revoke rules governing tailpipe emissions from vehicles. What is climate change? A really simple guideThe EPA's move is likely to face legal challenges, and some experts have questioned whether the administration's decision will make it through the courts at all. But Richard Revesz, the former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Biden administration and a law professor at New York University, told the Washington Post that the announcement will still have an impact on US climate change policies until a final decision is made in the court system. "If the endangerment finding fell, it would call into question essentially all or almost all of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases," he said. (With additional reporting from Mark Poynting)
