Case Study: Reporting the LIBOR Prosecutions

Accuracy note. On 23 July 2025 the UK Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. As of 2026 neither man stands convicted in relation to these matters, and neither should be described as convicted or as a criminal in the present tense. This case study sets out the history accurately: convicted at trial in 2015 and 2019, convictions quashed in 2025, no retrial sought.

1. What happened

LIBOR — the London Interbank Offered Rate — and EURIBOR are benchmark interest rates that underpin a vast range of financial contracts. Following the financial crisis, regulators and prosecutors alleged that some bank traders had sought to influence the submissions used to set these rates. A series of high-profile criminal prosecutions followed in the UK.

This case study is not about deciding whether anyone behaved wrongly. It is about how journalists report long-running, technically complex financial-crime litigation accurately across many years — through convictions, appeals, and, ultimately, a Supreme Court ruling that quashed the convictions at the centre of the story.

2. The prosecutions and convictions (history)

Tom Hayes, a former UBS and Citigroup trader, was convicted in 2015 of conspiracy to defraud in relation to Yen LIBOR and was originally sentenced to 14 years, a sentence later reduced on appeal. Carlo Palombo, a former Barclays trader, was convicted in 2019 in relation to EURIBOR.

These are historical facts about what happened at the time. Reported carefully, they should always be tied to their date and stage: a person convicted at trial in 2015 or 2019 is described accurately in the past tense and in the context of the proceedings then, not as a settled, permanent status. That precision mattered enormously when the picture changed years later.

3. The 2025 Supreme Court quashing

On 23 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court unanimously quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. It held that their trials had been unfair because the juries were misdirected. The trial judges had wrongly treated as a question of law — which they decided themselves — what was in truth a factual question for the jury: whether a rate submission reflected the submitter’s genuine opinion of the bank’s borrowing cost.

After the judgment, the Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek a retrial. The combined effect is that the convictions have been set aside and no fresh trial will take place. As of 2026, neither man stands convicted in relation to these matters.

4. Why the convictions could not stand

It is essential to state the basis of the quashing precisely. The Supreme Court held that the convictions could not stand because of the misdirection about who should decide the central factual question. That is a ruling about the fairness of the trials and the division of roles between judge and jury — not a pronouncement on the ultimate merits.

A quashed conviction is not the same as a finding of innocence. The Supreme Court did not decide that either man was innocent; it decided that the convictions could not stand. With no retrial pursued, the proceedings ended without any conviction in place. Careful reporting says exactly that, and neither asserts continuing guilt nor claims a positive finding of innocence that was not made.

5. The status now, on the official record

Accurate (present tense)

Neither Tom Hayes nor Carlo Palombo currently stands convicted in relation to these matters. Their convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court in 2025 and no retrial is being pursued.

Accurate (historical)

Each was convicted at trial - Hayes in 2015, Palombo in 2019 - and those convictions were later quashed by the Supreme Court in 2025.

Inaccurate and unsafe

Describing either man, in the present tense, as a convicted trader or a criminal. That is factually wrong after a quashing and is a serious defamation risk.

Also inaccurate

Stating that the Supreme Court found either man innocent. It did not; it held that the convictions could not stand due to the misdirection.

6. Reporting long-running proceedings accurately

1Respect the presumption of innocence at every stage. A charge or an allegation is not a conviction, and a conviction under appeal is not the final word.
2Observe the strict liability rule on contempt while proceedings are active, avoiding anything that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial.
3Rely on fair and accurate, contemporaneous reports of public court proceedings, which carry important protections when done properly.
4Track every stage over the life of a case: charge, trial, verdict, sentence, appeal, and any further appeal, because any of them can change the record.
5Explain the legal issue rather than oversimplifying it. The LIBOR appeals turned on a genuine law-versus-fact question that readers deserve to understand.

7. Updating and correcting the record after a quashing

When a conviction is quashed, the newsroom’s job is not finished; the archive has to catch up with reality. Old articles, headlines and standfirsts that describe a person as convicted become inaccurate the moment the conviction is set aside, and a publisher can remain responsible for what its archive continues to say to new readers.

The safe practice is to update or annotate earlier coverage, add a clear note recording the quashing, and ensure that any present-tense description of the person reflects the current position. Continuing to publish a “convicted criminal” description after a quashing is both an accuracy failure and a serious defamation risk that grows the longer it goes uncorrected.

8. What journalists can learn

A financial-crime story is not over until the final appeal is decided; keep the case open in your planning for years if necessary.
Tie every description of a person to the correct stage and date, so that the record can be updated cleanly when things change.
After a quashing, describe the history in the past tense and the present status accurately: not convicted, but not judicially declared innocent either.
Audit and correct the archive, because liability and inaccuracy can persist in old pages long after the news moves on.
Explain difficult legal points, such as the division of roles between judge and jury, rather than reducing them to a slogan.
Attribute each outcome to the court that made it, and let official records, not the reporting, define a person's legal status.

9. Timeline

After the financial crisis
Regulators and prosecutors allege that some bank traders sought to influence LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions; UK criminal prosecutions follow.
2015
Tom Hayes, a former UBS and Citigroup trader, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud in relation to Yen LIBOR and sentenced to 14 years, later reduced on appeal.
2019
Carlo Palombo, a former Barclays trader, was convicted in relation to EURIBOR.
23 July 2025
The UK Supreme Court unanimously quashes both convictions on the ground of jury misdirection; the Serious Fraud Office says it will not seek a retrial.

10. Common pitfalls

Calling either man a "convicted trader" or "criminal" in the present tense after the 2025 quashing. This is inaccurate and a serious defamation risk.
Reporting the quashing as a finding that the men were innocent. The court did not so find.
Leaving old online articles and headlines uncorrected once the convictions were set aside.
Oversimplifying the legal basis, for example saying the case "collapsed" without explaining the misdirection about law versus fact.
Implying present guilt through insinuation, hedging or loaded framing where no conviction stands.
Failing to attribute the outcome to the Supreme Court and the retrial decision to the Serious Fraud Office.

11. Jargon glossary

LIBOR

The London Interbank Offered Rate, a benchmark interest rate historically used across financial contracts.

EURIBOR

The Euro Interbank Offered Rate, a benchmark interest rate for euro-denominated lending between banks.

Conspiracy to defraud

A criminal offence involving an agreement to act dishonestly to another party's detriment; the charge in the Hayes case.

Quashed conviction

A conviction set aside by an appeal court, so that it no longer stands; it is not the same as a finding of innocence.

Misdirection

An error by a trial judge in directing the jury on the law, which can render a conviction unsafe.

Presumption of innocence

The principle that a person is not to be treated as guilty unless and until convicted by a court whose conviction stands.

Keep the record accurate

When a conviction is quashed, the archive has to catch up. Use our tools and guides to track long-running cases and audit older coverage for present-tense claims that no longer hold.

Investigation Risk Register Defamation Risk Checklist

Frequently asked questions

What were the LIBOR and EURIBOR cases about?

LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate, and EURIBOR are benchmark interest rates used across financial markets. Following the financial crisis, regulators and prosecutors alleged that some bank traders had sought to influence the submissions used to set these rates. A number of criminal cases followed in the UK. Two of the most prominent defendants were Tom Hayes, a former UBS and Citigroup trader, and Carlo Palombo, a former Barclays trader. Both were convicted at trial, in 2015 and 2019 respectively. As explained below, those convictions were later quashed by the Supreme Court in 2025, which changed the correct way to describe both men in the present tense.

What did the Supreme Court decide in 2025?

On 23 July 2025, the UK Supreme Court unanimously quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. It held that their trials had been unfair because the juries were misdirected: the trial judges had wrongly treated as a question of law, which they decided themselves, what was really a factual question for the jury, namely whether a rate submission reflected the submitter's genuine opinion of the bank's borrowing cost. After the judgment, the Serious Fraud Office said it would not seek a retrial. The effect is that, as of 2026, neither man stands convicted in relation to these matters.

Does the quashing mean Hayes and Palombo were innocent?

No. A quashed conviction is not the same as a finding of innocence. The Supreme Court did not rule that either man was innocent; it held that the convictions could not stand because of the misdirection about who should decide the central factual question. Because no retrial was sought, the criminal proceedings ended with no conviction in place. Accurate reporting states exactly that: the convictions were quashed and could not stand, and no court has since convicted either man. It should neither assert continuing guilt nor claim a positive finding of innocence that the court did not make.

How should a journalist describe them now?

In the present tense, neither Tom Hayes nor Carlo Palombo should be described as convicted or as a criminal in relation to these matters, because their convictions have been quashed and no retrial is being pursued. The accurate description is historical and precise: each was convicted at trial, in 2015 and 2019 respectively, and the Supreme Court quashed those convictions in 2025. Continuing to call a person a convicted criminal after a conviction has been quashed is both inaccurate and a serious defamation risk, and that applies to old online articles and headlines as much as to new ones.

What is the wider lesson for court reporting?

Long-running financial-crime cases can take more than a decade to conclude, and the story is not over until the final appeal is decided. The lesson is to report each stage accurately, respect the presumption of innocence and any reporting restrictions while proceedings are active, and update the record when a conviction is overturned. That includes correcting archived articles and headlines, because a publisher can remain responsible for what its archive continues to say. Covering complex benchmark-rate law fairly also means explaining the legal issue, such as the law-versus-fact question, rather than oversimplifying it.

Primary sources

UK Supreme Court judgment (Hayes and Palombo), 23 July 2025— The Supreme Court
Serious Fraud Office— SFO
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary— Judiciary of England and Wales
Contempt of court guidance— GOV.UK
Editors' Code of Practice (accuracy and corrections)— IPSO