The traders protested that any potential gains to their bonuses from a nudge to Libor of a maximum 0.00125% were far too little to motivate a criminal conspiracy. What they saw as the clerical task of choosing 'high' or 'low' rates based on the commercial interests of the bank - was merely what every bank had done since the 1980s, long before they started work. But according to the SFO, it was interest rate "manipulation" that amounted to evidence of an international conspiracy to defraud. At his 2015 trial, Hayes said he had not asked for any false answers to be given to the Libor question – but merely tried to ensure his bank selected a commercially advantageous rate from the range of accurate interest rates at which it could genuinely borrow. But the judge, Mr Justice Jeremy Cooke, decided that any attempt to take into account commercial interests when submitting a Libor rate was "self-evidently" unlawful. Sentencing Hayes to 14 years, he dismissed the argument that it was City practice. "The fact that others were doing the same as you is no excuse, nor is the fact that your immediate managers saw the benefit of what you were doing and condoned and embraced it, if not encouraged it.[…] The conduct involved here must be marked out as dishonest and wrong and a message sent to the world of banking accordingly."