Summary

  • Christian Bittar's 2018 case ended without a financial penalty but with a professional ban. Eight years later, the FCA has withdrawn that ban and three others, removing specific restrictions on the work the four men can do.
  • The courts overturned the convictions; the FCA then changed its own decisions. Neither step establishes that the men have returned to their former jobs or received compensation.

A fine that was not imposed, a ban that remained

Christian Bittar's case had two very different stakes: money and the work he was allowed to do. In 2018, the first fell away. The second did not.

The FCA had initially decided on a £6.5 million penalty. Bittar challenged its decision at the Upper Tribunal. As the regulator's 2018 account explains, the parties later agreed that no financial penalty should be imposed. The tribunal's order of 14 September recorded that agreement and dismissed the rest of the challenge. His professional ban became final.

That distinction survived for eight years. The large number in the old announcement was not a fine Bittar ultimately paid to the FCA. The less eye-catching prohibition was a continuing limit on his professional activity.

What changed the outcome was not a new calculation of the penalty. It was a court ruling that began with two other men.

The question a jury had to answer

In July 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo. Their cases concerned LIBOR and EURIBOR, benchmark interest rates used in financial contracts. Banks submitted estimates to help form those rates. The honesty of an estimate was central to the cases.

Did the submitted number genuinely express the bank's opinion? That was for the jury to decide, the Supreme Court ruled. A wish to benefit a trading position could count as evidence of dishonesty. It did not automatically make the estimate dishonest by law.

The judges' instructions at trial had stopped the juries from properly considering the defence. The convictions could not stand. That did not mean there was no case to answer: the Supreme Court said a correctly instructed jury could have convicted on the evidence.

The ruling opened a route for others. The Criminal Cases Review Commission sent five further cases back to court in January 2026. On 7 October, the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions of Jonathan Mathew, Jay Merchant, Alex Pabon, Philippe Moryoussef and Colin Bermingham.

Bittar had pleaded guilty, so his appeal was separate. His conviction was overturned on 9 October. The Serious Fraud Office had not opposed the five appeals after jury trials. It argued for a different outcome for Bittar, then said it respected the court's decision.

A second decision, outside the courtroom

The FCA still had to address its own restrictions. On 16 October 2026, it revoked the bans of Bittar, Colin Bermingham, Philippe Moryoussef and Jonathan Mathew. That is a four-person list, not the same five people whose appeals succeeded on 7 October.

The regulator explained that the overturned convictions had been the basis for its action. It removed the related Final Notices from its channels and said it would take no further action against the four in this matter.

It had already responded to the earlier court ruling on 25 July 2025: Palombo's ban was revoked and proceedings against Hayes were ended. Hayes had challenged its decision at the Upper Tribunal, so the two cases were not at the same stage.

The October statement does not declare every benchmark allegation false or offer a fresh assessment of separate regulatory evidence. It does remove a specific obstacle to the four men's working lives. For Bittar, the 2018 outcome had left the ban intact even though the money penalty was not imposed. The 2026 outcome no longer does. What he does next is not in these documents; what he is no longer prohibited from doing is the point of the reversal.