Judge accuses Tom of being a gambler, prosecution present evidence from online gambling accounts with money coming form online gambling sites, Tom's response "Thats not gambling thats arbitrage!"
“The time has come to give extremely robust advice to your client,” he told Mr. Hayes’s lawyers at an October 2014 court hearing. “Your client, if I understand the mentality of City traders—and I like to think I do—is probably by nature a gambler….It’s an open-and-shut case in the emails.”Mr. Hayes’s team made a bold gamble of its own: It sought the judge’s recusal. It wasn’t just his “open-and-shut” statement. They noted his references to Mr. Hayes as a “gambler.” The defense felt that was pejorative.In opposing the judge’s recusal, the SFO presented the court with copies of Mr. Hayes’s bank accounts. They were littered with entries from online gambling companies.
“That’s not gambling, that’s just arbitrage!” Mr. Hayes fumed in court.
Mr. Hayes, it turned out, had discovered an error in an online casino’s policies for paying out bonus cash. The mistake allowed new customers to virtually guarantee themselves a big profit the first time they placed a bet.
“When I realized they’d screwed the maths up, I knew this was just free money,” he told me later. He exploited the loophole over and over. Then he found similar errors on other gambling websites. That was why his bank accounts were peppered with money from casinos—and why Mr. Hayes didn’t view it as gambling.
His lawyers shushed him.
The recusal motion failed. Judge Cooke remained in charge.
WSJ running a 5 part series worth the read imo. Seems like the SFO (and other regulartory agencies) want this guy to take the blame for rigging LIBOR and he is fighting them to the death. This is so rediculous because every trader and trading company involved in trading/setting LIBOR attempts to manipulate it. Idiot regulators, the traders arent the problem the system/process of setting LIBOR is the the problem.
Also its bs the recusal motion failed imo.
“The time has come to give extremely robust advice to your client,” he told Mr. Hayes’s lawyers at an October 2014 court hearing. “Your client, if I understand the mentality of City traders—and I like to think I do—is probably by nature a gambler….It’s an open-and-shut case in the emails.”Mr. Hayes’s team made a bold gamble of its own: It sought the judge’s recusal. It wasn’t just his “open-and-shut” statement. They noted his references to Mr. Hayes as a “gambler.” The defense felt that was pejorative.In opposing the judge’s recusal, the SFO presented the court with copies of Mr. Hayes’s bank accounts. They were littered with entries from online gambling companies.
“That’s not gambling, that’s just arbitrage!” Mr. Hayes fumed in court.
Mr. Hayes, it turned out, had discovered an error in an online casino’s policies for paying out bonus cash. The mistake allowed new customers to virtually guarantee themselves a big profit the first time they placed a bet.
“When I realized they’d screwed the maths up, I knew this was just free money,” he told me later. He exploited the loophole over and over. Then he found similar errors on other gambling websites. That was why his bank accounts were peppered with money from casinos—and why Mr. Hayes didn’t view it as gambling.
His lawyers shushed him.
The recusal motion failed. Judge Cooke remained in charge.
WSJ running a 5 part series worth the read imo. Seems like the SFO (and other regulartory agencies) want this guy to take the blame for rigging LIBOR and he is fighting them to the death. This is so rediculous because every trader and trading company involved in trading/setting LIBOR attempts to manipulate it. Idiot regulators, the traders arent the problem the system/process of setting LIBOR is the the problem.
Also its bs the recusal motion failed imo.