header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

What next for financial law enforcement?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
26 September 2025 / Neil Swift
Issue: 8132 / Categories: Opinion , Fraud , Criminal , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail
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
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll