A statement by the Serious Fraud Office on R v Hayes and R v
Palombo.
The Serious Fraud Office investigates and prosecutes the most
complex fraud, bribery and corruption cases affecting the UK and
the safety of our economy.
Today's Supreme Court decision comes thirteen years after we
first investigated the practice used by some traders and
submitters at selected banks to influence key benchmark rates of
interest in financial markets.
These rates were called the London Inter-bank Offered Rate
(“LIBOR”) and the Euro Inter-bank Offered Rate (“EURIBOR”) and
they affected the value of hundreds of trillions of dollars'
worth of financial products around the world, including ordinary
people's pensions, mortgages and savings.
Our investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for
fraud offences, with two of these individuals pleading guilty and
seven found guilty by juries.
This judgment has determined that the legal directions given by
the judge to the jury at the conclusion of trial were incorrect
in Hayes' and Palombo's trials and for that reason their
convictions have today been found unsafe.
We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances
carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest
for us to seek a retrial.
29 August update
We have a duty, as a prosecutor, to inform past defendants about
any development that could affect their conviction.
At this point, we have made an assessment on six
individuals.
We consider that, in five instances, the circumstances that led
to and Carlo Palombo's appeals
being upheld by the Supreme Court could apply to them too.
We consider that the jury directions, given at Hayes' and
subsequently Palombo's trial and which were the basis of the
court's judgment, may apply to Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant,
Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef and Bermingham's trials. Therefore,
their convictions may be considered unsafe.
For one individual, Peter Johnson, we have considered the
judgment in respect of his guilty plea, and we consider that the
conviction is safe.
It is for each defendant to consider whether they wish to
progress their case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
