Judge backs Libor trader confiscation order

Topics: City,Money laundering and financial crime

Tom hayes
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (3)
  • Save

A court has stripped former City trader Tom Hayes (pictured) of more than half of his £1.7m available assets in a confiscation proceeding, a significant win for the Serious Fraud Office’s proceeds of crime division.

The order follows Hayes’ conviction for conspiracy to manipulate the London interbank offered rate (Libor).

Advertisement

Sitting at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Justice Cooke, who also presided over the original criminal trial, ordered Hayes to pay £878,806. Hayes must satisfy the order within a specified period or incur a default prison sentence of three years.

Hayes owns a seven-bedroom family home in Surrey. He transferred half of the property to his wife in 2013 to enable her to take out a mortgage to meet mounting legal fees. Prosecutors told the court that this had been done without informing the SFO, and against the advice of his then-lawyers.

During the confiscation proceedings, the court was asked to consider three questions. Had the defendant benefited from relevant criminal conduct? If so, what was the value of the benefit he obtained? Finally, what sum was recoverable from him?

Commenting on today’s order, Mark Thompson, head of the SFO’s proceeds of crime division, said: ‘The court acknowledged the challenges of quantifying the benefit from crime in this case. The SFO provided the court with all the available information and the outcome is a substantial confiscation order.’

Peter Binning, principal at niche corporate crime firm Corker Binning, told the Gazette the confiscation order was a significant development because the ‘SFO case was not based on actual loss’. As a result, he added, the judgment ‘appears to have done something quite dramatic’.

The SFO had originally sought to recover all the bonuses awarded to Hayes in the period of his misconduct. The judge instead applied a figure of around 35%, representing the value gained by Hayes as a consequence of criminal misconduct.

Matthew Frankland, partner at Byrne and Partners, acted for a defendant acquitted in the UBS Libor 2 Trial. He noted that the SFO had been unusually tenacious in the confiscation case.

Frankland said: ‘It seems the SFO’s approach to Mr Hayes’ confiscation has been as aggressive as it was to his trial. The pursuit by them of the engagement ring he gave to his wife is a fairly unprecedented example.’

Costs were not determined in the judgment. Hayes is serving 11 years in prison following his conviction in August 2015 for conspiring to manipulate Libor.

Readers' comments (3)

  • It appears the confiscation order was based on a calculation of what the defendant personally had gained (in terms of bonuses etc) as a result of the manipulation of the LIBOR computations.

    That does not appear to be anything new.

    David

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How refreshing to see a reasonable judge applying a benefit figure based on what the defendant had factually personally received as a result of the alleged crime, rather than some fictitious figure conjured up by the prosecution for publicity.
    This should pave the way for confiscation appeals where judges have simply gone along with unreasonable prosecutors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely the engagement ring is his wife's property?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (3)
  • Save

Petty france

Third-party JR funders must be allowed anonymity – Law Society

25 August 2016By

Ministry of Justice says identification of funders giving more than £3,000 will ensure equality of arms.

Dixon3

Buy-to-let tax changes ‘legislation by stealth’

24 August 2016By

Law Society says amendments at committee stage 'set disturbing precedent'. 

Jeremy Wright QC MP

‘Unduly lenient’ sentences hiked for 102 offenders

24 August 2016By Gazette reporter

Number has risen 13% since 2010, but requests have more than doubled – suggesting judges ‘generally get sentencing right’.