Supreme Court judgment prompts fraud case review

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) plays a crucial role in the UK, tackling complex cases of fraud, bribery, and corruption that could jeopardise the safety of the economy. Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court marks a significant moment, arriving thirteen years after the SFO initiated its investigation into the manipulation of key benchmark rates by traders at selected banks. The London Inter-bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Inter-bank Offered Rate (EURIBOR) were at the centre of this malpractice, influencing hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of financial products globally and directly impacting ordinary individuals' pensions, mortgages, and savings.

Following the SFO’s exhaustive inquiry, nine senior bankers have been convicted for committing fraud offences; this includes two individuals who pleaded guilty and seven who were found guilty through jury trials. The Supreme Court's recent decision asserts that the legal directions provided to the jury during the trials of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were flawed, leading to their convictions being deemed unsafe. In light of this ruling, the SFO has decided it is not in the public interest to pursue a retrial for these cases.

As a responsible prosecutor, the SFO has a duty to inform past defendants of any developments that might affect their convictions. Currently, they are reviewing six cases related to the individuals convicted alongside Hayes and Palombo. Notably, the office believes that the jury directions in the trials of these five individuals—Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef, and Colin Bermingham—could also render their convictions unsafe. The SFO acknowledges that the Supreme Court’s findings might extend to these cases.

However, with respect to Peter Johnson, who entered a guilty plea, the SFO concluded that his conviction remains secure. It is now left to each individual to decide whether they wish to seek further action through the Criminal Cases Review Commission or the Court of Appeal, as they consider their options in light of this significant legal development.