header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 September 2025 / Neil Swift
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud , Criminal , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

What next for financial law enforcement?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
230751
After the Supreme Court judgment that quashed the Hayes and Palombo convictions, Neil Swift considers the wider implications

On 23 July, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on appeals against conviction in R v Hayes; R v Palombo [2025] UKSC 29.

Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo (pictured) were interest rate derivative traders, convicted following trials in 2015 and 2019 respectively. Hayes’s conviction related to the attempted manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010, while Palombo’s related to the attempted manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) between 2005 and 2009.

About benchmarks

Libor and Euribor were benchmark rates, intended to reflect the current cost of borrowing in the market. They were calculated by reference to the rates that a panel of substantial and reputable banks were able (or considered they were able) to borrow from other banks in the market at a particular time each day. Submissions were made on behalf of each contributor bank in relation to a variety of different

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll