NLJ this week: Supreme Court resets the rules on complex fraud trials

The court condemned the ‘essential error’ of instructing juries on how to interpret definitions such as Libor, holding that interpretation was a matter of fact, not law, unless the document created legal obligations. But Cohen-Lask warns that this binary distinction may create practical confusion: Euribor fell within contractual obligations, while Libor did not, giving rise to inconsistent permissible directions.

With juries left to assess dishonesty in markets far outside ordinary experience, she suggests the decision may unintentionally widen jury discretion.

As the article notes, proposals to remove juries from complex fraud trials entirely now raise the stakes further, highlighting the fragility of judicial guidance in financial crime.