Other traders convicted over IBOR have announced their intention to appeal following the Supreme Court judgment which quashed the convictions of former City traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo.

Litigation specialists Hickman & Rose confirmed former traders Jay Merchant, Christian Bittar, Philippe Moryoussef and Jonathan Matthew would be appealing their convictions.

Merchant, a former Barclays employee, was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison after he was convicted of conspiracy to defraud following an 11-week trial in 2016. His sentence was later reduced by a year on appeal. 

Matthew, who was not a trader but a former Barclays rate submitter, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to four years imprisonment in 2016.

Former traders Tom Hayes (R) and Carlo Palombo (L) outside the Supreme Court

Hayes (right) and Palombo’s convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court this week

Source: ANDY RAIN/EPA/Shutterstock

In 2018, Bittar, a former Deutsche Bank trader, was sentenced to five years and four months imprisonment after pleading guilty to being part of a conspiracy to defraud and former Barclays trader Moryoussef, who moved to France before being convicted at trial, was sentenced in his absence to eight years’ imprisonment. 

A spokesperson for Hickman & Rose, who represented Palombo, said: ‘Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to quash the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, all four of our clients now intend to appeal against their convictions. In those circumstances, they don’t intend to comment further at this time.’

Hayes and Palombo’s convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court this week after the unanimous decision of Lord Leggatt, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler found the judge’s directions to the jury in Hayes’ trial were ‘legally inaccurate and unfair’, and the ‘flaws’ in the directions given at Palombo’s trial meant his conviction ‘cannot stand’.

At the time of the Supreme Court judgment handdown, a spokesperson for the Serious Fraud Office said it had considered the judgment and full circumstances ‘carefully’ and would not be seeking a retrial as it would ‘not be in the public interest’.