Talk:Tom Hayes (trader)

Untitled

The preamble reads "He was found to have acted of his own accord, while Hayes asserted managers were aware of his actions, and even condoned them"

However later in the article it says "The defence attempted to illustrate that manipulation of Libor was both widespread and expected as part of Hayes' job description... though this was not accepted by the courts as a defence."

Now clearly he was found guilty, but was this because it was found in fact that he "acted alone" or something like that, or was it because as a matter of law it is no defence to say (though it may be true) that "everyone is doing it"? 51.148.9.18 (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Acting "of his own accord" is not the same as saying he's the only person committing the crime. When you park your car illegally, you do so of your own accord, notwithstanding the fact the driver of the car behind you is breaking the same law. There's no contradiction in the text as it stands. If you think the judge found a conspiracy, produce the source and change the text. sirlanz 14:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The cited text is misleading because it sets up a false dichotomy by the two alternatives it juxtaposes. It implies that Hayes's argument -- that his managers were fully aware -- was rejected, and that there was a finding confirming UBS's contention that he was just a rogue trader and that top executives were shocked when they learned what was going on. There was no such finding. Hayes was convicted because he "acted of his own accord" in the sense of having acted intentionally, regardless of whether he "acted of his own accord" in the sense of having acted behind management's back. For clarity's sake, I've rewritten the sentence without that vague "acted of his own accord" phrase.

AFAIK there was no express finding that there was a conspiracy, nor was there an express finding that there was not a conspiracy. The key legal point was that Hayes was considered to be guilty based on his own actions, regardless of whatever anyone else might or might not have done. JamesMLane t c 05:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Sirlanz, you have reverted my edit with no discussion here, and no response to my pointing out how the article is misleading. Your reworded text refers to an alleged finding that Hayes acted alone, which in the context of your edit clearly implies a finding that his managers were unaware of his activities. I very much doubt that there was such a finding, for two reasons. First, there was ample evidence that they were aware. Second, it would not have been a question that was even submitted to the jury. If his managers encouraged Hayes to break the law, and he did so, then he could be convicted. The conviction does not prove a rejection of his contention on the question of fact about whether they knew; it would be quite adequately based on the point of law that their knowledge is legally immaterial to his own guilt.

The assertion that Hayes was found to be lying about the managers' knowledge is a negative statement about a living person. I should perhaps just revert it on BLP grounds but I'll wait and see if we can resolve it through discussion here instead of an edit war. JamesMLane t c 01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)