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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll