Judge Allows Publication of Names in Libor Case

U.K. Court Lets Injunction Blocking Journal Article to Expire

By CASSELL BRYAN-LOW and
JENNY STRASBURG

Updated Oct. 21, 2013 12:42 p.m. ET

LONDON—An English judge said Monday he wouldn't renew a court order obtained by British prosecutors that prevented

The Wall Street Journal from publishing names of individuals the government planned to implicate in a criminal-fraud case alleging a scheme to manipulate benchmark interest rates.

The same judge late Thursday had ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

Read the Original Article

The Wall Street Journal's Oct. 17 article has been republished following the expiration of a court order. Read the article: U.K. Expected to Name Alleged Co-Conspirators in Libor Scandal.

The order, which applied to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.

The judge said Monday he had granted the order last week on a temporary basis so that the matter could be fully discussed in court. Following Monday's daylong hearing, he said there was "no basis" for the reporting restrictions.

He also didn't issue any new orders despite numerous submissions by lawyers representing alleged co-conspirators that there should be.

Previously





At Monday's hearing, the three named defendants were present. Two of them— Tom Hayes and Terry Farr —had indictments that had been in draft form, meaning they hadn't been signed. The indictment for the other defendant— James Gilmour —had been signed. Mr. Hayes told the Journal in a January text message that "this goes much much higher than me." Lawyers for Messrs. Farr and Gilmour haven't responded to requests for comment.

The judge did agree to demands by lawyers representing alleged co-conspirators to amend the two draft indictments to remove the names. However, Mr. Gilmour's indictment names some of the alleged co-conspirators related to his charges.

In court Monday, it was revealed that the SFO had notified the alleged co-conspirators by letter on Sept. 30 that the SFO planned to name them in the indictments. The letter also said that any allegation of criminality was against the defendants only, and that no decision had been made on whether charges should be pursued against the alleged co-conspirators.

The Journal received word of the order not to publish from the SFO by email at 7:18 p.m. London time on Oct. 17. The news organization already had published an articleon Dow Jones Newswires and the Journal's website, WSJ.com, that divulged names of traders and brokers that prosecutors had expected to publicly name this week. The article was taken down from the website but appeared in Friday's print editions of the Journal circulated in the U.S. and in Asia.

The article said the government was preparing to name roughly two dozen traders and brokers, adding that prosecutors were still finalizing their plans and that the list could change, citing people familiar with the process.

Inclusion on the list doesn't represent a formal accusation of wrongdoing and doesn't mean the individuals will be charged with crimes.

Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Journal, had called the order "a serious affront to press freedom." Dow Jones is a unit of News Corp. NWSA +0.12% In a statement Monday, the paper said it was "delighted" that the temporary injunction wasn't renewed and added "This represents a victory all media organizations operating in England and Wales, many of whom supported us in this effort." The newspaper said has republished on its website the article in question.

English laws in this area are designed to protect the criminal process. It is unusual, although not unheard of, for prosecutors to seek to prevent the media from publishing details related to an investigation before a trial.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...49500282467112