GOV.UK: Response to Supreme Court judgment

• The Serious Fraud Office did not oppose the appeals after reviewing the Supreme Court's findings on jury directions.
• Convictions of Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef and Colin Bermingham were found unsafe.

The Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of five individuals—Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef and Colin Bermingham—in LIBOR and EURIBOR manipulation cases. This followed the Supreme Court’s judgment that the legal directions given to juries in the original trials were incorrect, rendering the convictions unsafe.

The Serious Fraud Office reviewed the Supreme Court judgment and decided not to oppose the appeals of these five individuals. The SFO communicated its decision to the affected parties last year and determined it was not in the public interest to seek retrials for Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, whose convictions were also found unsafe.

• Review LIBOR and EURIBOR prosecution jury directions for Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef and Colin Bermingham.
• Update internal case files referencing the Supreme Court judgment in R v Hayes and R v Palombo.
• Notify compliance teams of the SFO’s decision not to oppose appeals and not to seek retrials for Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo.

This story highlights the importance of correct legal directions in complex financial crime prosecutions. The overturning of convictions in high-profile LIBOR and EURIBOR cases underscores the need for compliance officers to ensure that internal investigations and reporting align with current legal standards. It also signals that past convictions may be subject to review, affecting risk assessments and regulatory disclosures. Compliance teams must stay alert to changes in legal interpretations that could impact ongoing or historical cases involving benchmark rate manipulation.