The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions of five former Barclays traders on 7 October 2026, according to same-day reporting. The traders are Philippe Moryoussef, Jay Merchant, Colin Bermingham, Jonathan Mathew and Alex Pabon. The ruling follows a Criminal Cases Review Commission referral prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions in related LIBOR and EURIBOR cases; detailed reasons for the new ruling have not been established in the available report.
Which former Barclays bankers had their convictions overturned?
The five named traders are:
- Alex Pabon, a LIBOR trader based in New York.
- Jay Merchant (named as Jay Vijay Merchant in the CCRC account), a LIBOR trader based in New York.
- Jonathan Mathew, a LIBOR submitter and junior trader based in London.
- Philippe Moryoussef, a senior trader based in London.
- Colin Bermingham, responsible for Barclays’ daily EURIBOR submissions in London.
Their convictions concerned conspiracy to defraud in cases involving benchmark-rate submissions. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) says Pabon, Merchant and Mathew were convicted at Southwark Crown Court in 2016, Moryoussef in 2018, and Bermingham in 2019. The CCRC records the original sentences as ranging from two to six and a half years for the 2016 group, eight years for Moryoussef, and five years for Bermingham. These are the sentences imposed at conviction, not a statement about time served. CCRC, 29 January 2026
Why were the cases sent back to the appeal court?
In January 2026, the CCRC referred all five cases to the Court of Appeal. It said it found no distinguishing factor between these convictions and those of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, whose convictions the Supreme Court had quashed in July 2025. The CCRC concluded that jury misdirection and legal errors undermined the safety of the five Barclays convictions.
A referral is not itself a quashing. The CCRC reviews cases and can refer them to an appeal court; the court decides whether a conviction is unsafe. The five convictions were separately considered by the Court of Appeal. They were not automatically overturned by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hayes and Palombo.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
What did the Supreme Court say about LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions?
In R v Hayes; R v Palombo, decided unanimously on 23 July 2025, the Supreme Court considered how benchmark definitions worked. LIBOR—the London Interbank Offered Rate—asked for a bank’s estimate of the rate at which it could borrow from other banks. EURIBOR—the Euro Interbank Offered Rate—was a similar reference rate for euro-zone banks.
The Court said a submitter could choose a rate within a range that the submitter regarded as legitimate. Whether a submission reflected the submitter’s genuine opinion was a factual question for the jury. The Court’s press summary put the point this way: “The law could not dictate whether or not the answer given to the question posed by the LIBOR definition represented the submitter’s genuine opinion.” UK Supreme Court case materials, 23 July 2025
Rank #2
Trading advantage did not, by itself, establish that a submission was false or dishonest. A judge could not tell a jury that a rate was automatically non-genuine simply because it was influenced by commercial advantage. The jury had to decide whether it represented the submitter’s actual opinion. The Supreme Court found that incorrect directions in Hayes’s trial removed that key question from the jury and made the trial unfair; it also held Palombo’s conviction unsafe in light of errors in the directions. The Commission subsequently said it saw no relevant distinction that would prevent the same concerns being considered in the five Barclays cases. UK Supreme Court case materials CCRC, 24 July 2025
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the October 2026 ruling?
Same-day reporting confirms that the Court of Appeal quashed the five convictions on 7 October 2026. The available report does not set out the court’s detailed reasoning or cite a published judgment. The Supreme Court’s explanation of the Hayes and Palombo appeals, and the CCRC’s reasons for referring these cases, provide context but should not be treated as the Court of Appeal’s specific grounds for this decision. UPI, 7 October 2026
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteQuick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
- non-fiction african american book set
- non-fiction black book set
- non-fiction african american children's book set
- non-fiction black children's book set
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
