Rate-Rigging Showdown: Traders Challenge Convictions After Supreme Court Ruling!

In a dramatic legal development, four traders - Jay Merchant, Jonathan Mathew, Philippe Moryoussef, and Christian Bittar - are appealing to have their rate-rigging convictions overturned. This move follows a significant Supreme Court ruling that quashed the convictions of their peers, Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, on charges of manipulating Libor, the critical interest rate benchmark that influenced loans between banks and played a central role in the 2008 financial crisis.

After the landmark ruling in favor of Hayes and Palombo, the traders, represented by Hickman & Rose, are bolstered in their quest for acquittal. The law firm stated, “Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision yesterday to quash the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, all four of our clients now intend to appeal against their convictions,” signaling strong support amid their legal challenges.

The backdrop of this case stems from an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, which looked into allegations that traders manipulated rates for outright profit. The Libor scandal erupted in 2012, revealing that banks were not only inflating rates but also deflating them to disguise financial instability brought on by the global crisis. As the consequences of these actions unfolded, the Euribor, its European equivalent, is currently undergoing reform maneuvers following the fallout from the Libor scandal.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling favoring Hayes and Palombo, the path for the remaining four traders’ appeals appears clearer and potentially less arduous than the lengthy battle faced by Hayes and Palombo, who argued their actions were simply part of normal commercial practices, rather than criminal activities.

The Serious Fraud Office has not commented on the fresh appeals but maintained that pursuing a retrial would not be in the public interest, after thoughtfully considering the recent Supreme Court judgement.

Interestingly, in 2023, a BBC investigation revealed evidence suggesting a much broader, state-sanctioned manipulation of interest rates, pressuring from central banks and governments during the financial turmoil, further complicating the narrative of these convictions.

As this legal saga unfolds, the implications of these appeals could reshape perceptions of accountability in the finance industry and the historical context of the 2008 crisis.