JPMorgan Trader Aiyer’s Forex Rigging Conviction Upheld by Judge

Former JPMorgan Chase & Co. currency trader Akshay Aiyer failed to convince a Manhattan federal judge to overturn his criminal conviction for conspiring to rig foreign currency markets.

“The evidence in this case established beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed whose object was to fix prices and rig bids,” Judge John G. Koeltl wrote.

He upheld the jury’s decision in a detailed 63-page ruling delving into Aiyer’s role in the scheme to manipulate foreign exchange rates through banking industry chatrooms, text messages, and other electronic communications.

The allegations resemble those from numerous class actions and enforcement suits targeting similar schemes involving some of the world’s top banks, which have paid more than $10 billion in penalties for currency-related misconduct in recent years.

In his ruling Monday, Koeltl denied Aiyer’s motion for a new trial or an acquittal notwithstanding the November verdict, which came after a two-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Ample evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that Aiyer coordinated with other traders to fix the prices of Central and Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and “African emerging markets” currencies, the judge said.

He rejected Aiyer’s argument that his guilt wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt because colluding in those markets is subject to the rule of reason—which asks whether it was anti-competitive under all the circumstances—rather than automatically illegal under the “per se” approach. That reasoning was “misplaced,” Koeltl said.

“The per se rule removes from the jury the question whether the alleged unlawful conspiracy had anti-competitive effects,” he wrote. “It is for the jury, properly instructed, to determine whether the defendant knowingly participated in a conspiracy.”

In other words, the jury only had to decide whether Aiyer did the things he was accused of, not whether those acts were illegal, Koeltl said. Chat logs and the testimony of other traders who cooperated with the government gave jurors more than sufficient grounds to reach that conclusion, the judge found.

Nor was he convinced by Aiyer’s challenge to his legal rulings earlier in the case, including the decision to apply the per se framework and the admission of co-conspirator testimony.

“None of these arguments has any merit,” Koeltl wrote.

Aiyer was represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. The government was represented by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

The case is United States v. Aiyer, S.D.N.Y., No. 18-cr-333, 7/6/20.