Two former merchants of the financial market imprisoned for the manipulation of interest rate reference are configured to find out if their offers of the Supreme Court to eliminate their names have been successful.
Tom Hayes, a former Citigroup and UBS merchant, was convicted of multiple conspiracy positions to disappoint for manipulating the rate offered by the Bank of London (Libor) between 2006 and 2010.
He is challenging his conviction, like Carlo Palombo, a former president of euros rates at Barclays Bank, who was convicted of conspiring with others to present false or deceptive presentations of Euro Interbank offered (Euribor) between 2005 and 2009.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of both men in March last year.
Then they took their cases to the Supreme Court.
The five judges panel were also asked to observe whether the cheapest rate must be presented, or if it can be selected from a variety of possible indebtedness rates.
The serious fraud office (SFO) opposed the appeals.
It is expected that the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, Lords Hodge, Lloyd-Jones and Leggatt, and Lady Simler issue his trial at 9.30 am on Wednesday.
At a hearing in March, the lawyers of the men said that the judge of first instance had erroneously directed the jury and injected “confusion” in their cases.
Adrian Darbishire KC, for Hayes, told the court that there was a “non -compliance with respecting the boundaries of a judge in a jury trial”, adding that “part of the jurors' point is that they are not judges: they are representative of the company”, and their views are sought in “preference” to that of a judge.
In the written presentations, Tim Owen KC, for Palombo, said that the instructions of the judge of first instance to the jury “failed to identify the correct problem for the jury” and “injected confusion into the terms of the accusation.”
Owen said that dishonesty was a “matter of fact for the jury to evaluate”, and not “an issue to be shaped by legal addresses.”
In written presentations, Sir James Eadie KC, which represents the OFS, said that the problems identified in the case of Hayes go “far beyond the problems derived from the certified questions”, and that his case “repeatedly characterizes the accused crime.”
He said: “Yes, as a matter of law, the definition of Libor does not allow the commercial advantage to be taken into account, it is still necessary for the prosecution to prove and the jury discover that the accused acted dishonestly when making the presentation.
“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 worldwide to establish millions of pounds in financial agreements, including loans for cars and mortgages.
It was an average interest rate calculated from figures presented by a panel of leading banks in London, and each reported what would be charged if they were lent 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 having acted dishonestly, but was imprisoned for four years in April 2019 after a new trial.
