The defendant appealed from his conviction for conspiracy to defraud in connection with the alleged manipulation of the Yen LIBOR.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘the critical issue for the jury’s consideration in this case was whether they believed that the appellant may have been telling the truth when he said that his admissions of dishonesty and LIBOR manipulation in his SOCPA interviews had not been genuine admissions of guilt (and, in particular, dishonesty), but had merely been an opportunistic means of avoiding extradition to the USA. That was the critical issue on which all turned and in respect of which there was not merely the interviews but the contemporaneous recordings which substantiated those interviews. Standing back from the detail, once the objective standard of dishonesty was established as the correct test for the first limb of the Ghosh direction, it is difficult to see how the application of the subjective standard to what the appellant was saying while undertaking these trades could have led to any different conclusion.’
References: [2015] EWCA Crim 1944
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Judges: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd CJ, Sir Brian Leveson P and Gloster LJ
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd (T/A Crockfords) SC 25-Oct-2017 (, [2017] UKSC 67, , UKSC 2016/0213, , , , , , [2018] AC 391, [2018] 1 Cr App R 12, [2017] WLR(D) 708, [2017] LLR 783, [2018] 2 All ER 406, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep FC 561, [2017] 3 WLR 1212, [2018] Crim LR 395)
The claimant gambler sought payment of his winnings. The casino said that he had operated a system called edge-sorting to achieve the winnings, and that this was a form of cheating so as to excuse their payment. The system exploited tiny variances . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 16 October 2020; Ref: scu.558975 br>