header-logo header-logo

26 September 2025 / Neil Swift
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud , Criminal , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

What next for financial law enforcement?

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll