The FCA has published a new strategy aimed at giving consumers the confidence to invest, supported by a high-quality, affordable advice market, which should lead to fewer people being scammed or persuaded to invest in products too risky for their needs. The FCA will publish metrics to assess whether these outcomes are being met.  
By 2025, the FCA will:

Reduce by 20% the number of consumers who could benefit from investment earnings but are missing out. There are nearly 8.6m consumers holding more than £10,000 of investible assets in cash.
Halve the number of consumers who are investing in higher risk products that are not aligned to their needs. 6% of consumers increased their holdings of higher risk investments during the pandemic, with 45% of self-directed investors saying they did not realise the risks.
Reduce the money consumers lose to investment scams perpetrated or facilitated by regulated firms. Consumers lost nearly £570m to investment fraud in 2020/21 – this has tripled since 2018.
Stabilise the £833m compensation bill for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and target a year-on-year reduction in the Life Distribution and Investment Intermediation (LDII) funding classes from 2025 to 2030.

To achieve this, the FCA has set out a package of measures including:

exploring regulatory changes to make it easier for firms to provide more help to consumers who want to invest in relatively straightforward products
launching a new £11m investment harm campaign, to help consumers make better-informed investment decisions and to reduce the number of people investing in inappropriate high-risk investments
being more assertive and agile in how the FCA detects, disrupts and takes action against scammers, thereby reducing investment scams  
strengthening the Appointed Representatives (AR) regime, with a consultation to be launched later this year, which aims to raise the quality of financial advice
strengthening the financial promotions regime in 3 areas; the classification of high-risk investments, further segmenting the high-risk market and strengthening the requirements on firms when they approve financial promotions
reviewing the compensation framework to ensure that it remains proportionate and appropriate, particularly where firms fail leaving behind compensation liabilities for the FSCS to address. This will reduce the cost and impact of poor advice

Sarah Pritchard, Executive Director of Markets at the FCA, said:
‘Investors have never had more freedom – technology has democratised the market, new products have become available, and people have better access to their life savings than before. But that freedom comes with risk. We want to give consumers greater confidence to invest and to help them do so safely, understanding the level of risk. The package of measures we have announced today are intended to support that – we want people to have greater confidence to invest. We also want to be able to adapt more rapidly to the changing market and be assertive where we see poor conduct and consumer harm.’
The FCA has already taken action to improve the market, for example by banning the mass-marketing of speculative mini-bonds and by being more assertive through its ongoing work to stop and disrupt firms and activities causing harm.
The FCA’s Consumer Investments Data Review, published alongside the strategy, shows that between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021, the FCA’s work to tackle harm, included: 

stopping 48 new firms from entering the market where the FCA identified potential for consumer harm (representing 1 in 5 applications)  
opening over 1,700 supervisory cases involving scams or higher risk investments  
publishing over 1,300 consumer alerts about unauthorised firms and individuals  

The FCA has set out the focus of its role and the changes that will be made to meet current and future challenges in its Business Plan 2021/22. In early 2022, the FCA will publish wholesale and retail strategies to set out the ambitions for these markets.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Faithfull had previously pleaded guilty to that offence on 16 April 2021 and put forward a basis of plea that sought to minimise his role in the offending. The FCA did not accept Faithfull’s basis of plea and the matter was listed for a Newton hearing – a trial of fact on a plea before a single judge – to determine the basis upon which he should be sentenced.
Following a 4-day hearing the judge, His Honour Judge Tomlinson, rejected the submissions made by Richard Faithfull’s legal team and accepted the FCA’s statement of the case.
Richard Faithfull laundered £2.5million as part of a trans-national organised crime group for longer than 12 months, laundering the proceeds of, at least, 7 professionally run overseas investment frauds.
The operation was sophisticated, utilising multiple accounts and front companies in numerous jurisdictions. Faithfull was able to use knowledge gained when he worked in the regulated sector – as an investment advisor – to help the fraudsters continue to defraud victims by paying fictional ‘dividends’ from bank accounts controlled by him to make it look as though the underlying investments were generating returns. He also involved innocent parties to help assist with his criminal enterprise.
To avoid detection he relocated to Ukraine where he lived a life of luxury whilst he continued his criminal activities, enlisting the assistance of local criminal groups abroad. Following his arrest, he spun a web of lies to try and throw the FCA off the case but at the hearing held last week he finally accepted that he was a ‘thoroughly dishonest person’.
The sentencing judge remarked that it was ‘serious offending’ which was linked to the ‘human misery caused by boiler room fraud’ and that ‘money coming in [to accounts controlled by Faithfull] was not being invested, it was simply being slaughtered’.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said: ‘Mr Faithfull’s actions showed little compassion for those affected by the underlying criminality instead seeking only to make a profit for himself and others. The FCA remain committed to ensuring that those who choose to break the law are brought to justice. We remind investors to check the FCA’s register are part of their due diligence when looking to make investments.’
The FCA will now pursue confiscation proceedings against him in order to try and seize his illegal gains.
Notes to editors

Faithfull is to be sentenced re Essex firearms offences separately.
This was a joint investigation with the City of London Police.
Previous updates on the case.
Newton Hearings are used where the 2 sides offer such conflicting evidence that a judge sitting alone tries to ascertain which party is telling the truth.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Incorrect or outdated permissions on the Financial Services (FS) Register can mislead consumers about the level of protection offered by a firm or give credibility to a firm’s unregulated activities.
The changes will help to prevent scams and to ensure the FS Register presents a clearer picture of the permissions firms hold. Firms are required to confirm that the information on the FS Register is accurate on an annual basis.
The new power, granted to the FCA via the Financial Services Act 2021, will streamline and shorten the process of removing firm permissions. The FCA will be able to start the cancellation process as soon as it considers permissions are not being used, by serving 14 days’ notice on a firm. The FCA will then be able to vary or cancel permissions after 1 month.
As part of its transformation, the FCA recently announced separate changes to its decision-making and governance to enable it to make faster and more effective decisions.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said:  
‘We want to use this power to take quicker action to prevent consumers being misled. It is part of our transformation and drive to be more assertive, drawing on an innovative approach and using new streamlined processes to make important regulatory interventions. 
‘Firms can and should apply to have their permissions cancelled if they no longer plan to use them but many fail to do so. We understand that business models may evolve over time and there may be valid reasons why regulatory permissions are not being used, but unless firms notify us and keep their permissions up to date, they will risk losing market access’. 
The FCA has already undertaken a ‘use it or lose it’ exercise with firms – reminding them of their obligation to review regulatory permissions and ensure they are up to date or removed if not needed.
As part of that work firms that have not used their permissions for 12 months or more are at risk of having them cancelled via the existing cancellations process. It is part of the FCA’s response to tackle issues raised by Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s review into the regulation of London Capital & Finance (LC&F).
The consultation will run until 29 October 2021. 
Notes to editors: 

Changes affect only firms authorised by the FCA under Part 4A of FSMA, excludes payments and e-money firms and firms authorised by the PRA.
Read CP21/28: New cancellation and variation power: Changes to the Handbook and Enforcement Guide 
Financial Services Act 2021
Read more about Use it or Lose it.
Read more about FCA proposing changes to streamline decision-making.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Part of the FCA’s ongoing work to ensure consumers receive fair value, the review looked at how firms designed, sold and reviewed their products to ensure they met the needs of their customers.
The findings show that some firms had made good progress in meeting the FCA’s existing rules and guidance on product governance and value, issued in 2018 and 2019, as well as against temporary guidance on product value, issued in response to Covid-19 last year.
However, too many firms are not fully meeting the FCA’s standards. In addition, many firms are likely to be unprepared to meet new enhanced rules on product governance, which come into force on 1 October 2021. These new rules are part of a wider package of remedies introduced by the FCA to tackle the loyalty penalty and ensure that firms focus on providing fair value to all their customers.
The review found weaknesses including:

Insufficient focus on customers, outcomes and product value, including when considering value in the context of Covid-19
Shortcomings in governance and oversight of products

As an example, it was not always clear firms have adequate processes in place to assess whether intermediary remuneration (such as how much a broker is paid) bears reasonable relationship to the costs or workload to distribute the product as set out in previous guidance and required under the rules applicable from 1 October 2021.
Sheldon Mills, Executive Director for Supervision, Policy and Competition at the FCA, said:
‘We know some firms are doing the right thing but with the deadline for implementing our enhanced rules less than two months away, it’s worrying that some firms may not be ready.
‘Where firms are not consistently meeting existing requirements and expectations, it risks harm through poor value products or products being sold to the wrong customers. These firms have significant work to do urgently to be able to comply with the enhanced product governance rules. Firms that fail to do that work risk regulatory action.’
The FCA’s enhanced product governance rules were introduced following its General insurance pricing practices market study which found home and motor insurance markets were not working well for consumers, particularly loyal customers. The rules are designed to ensure that firms have processes in place to deliver products that offer fair value to customers (all non‑investment insurance contracts, not only home and motor insurance).

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Mr Armin has referred his Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal where he will present his case. Any findings in the Decision Notice are therefore provisional and reflect the FCA’s belief as to what occurred and how it considers his behaviour should be characterised.
The Upper Tribunal will determine what, if any, is the appropriate action for the FCA to take, and will remit the matter to the FCA with such directions as the Upper Tribunal considers appropriate to give effect to its determination. The Upper Tribunal’s decision will be made public on its website. Accordingly, the proposed action outlined in the Decision Notice will have no effect pending the determination of the case by the Tribunal.
The FCA has decided to fine Mr Armin £1,284,523 and ban him from performing any senior management function in relation to any regulated activities carried on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm. The FCA has also decided to ban Mr Armin from advising consumers on pension transfers and pension opt outs. 
Mr Armin advised 422 customers on the transfer of their defined benefit pensions into alternative pension arrangements, including 183 members of the British Steel Pensions Scheme – 174 of whom transferred out of the scheme following Mr Armin’s recommendation. The FCA considers that Mr Armin was seriously incompetent when advising on defined benefit pension transfers, breaching Statement of Principle 2: conducting business with due skill, care and diligence, and Statement of Principle 7: taking reasonable steps to ensure that RPPS complied with relevant regulatory requirements and standards.
In advising customers, Mr Armin failed to obtain the necessary information required to assess the suitability of a pension transfer for a customer, and also disregarded information including customers’ financial situation, income needs throughout retirement, and how their existing pension benefits compared to the proposed alternative.
In some cases, Mr Armin only informed customers of the consequences of their decision to forego the valuable guaranteed benefits offered by their defined benefit pension after they had already transferred out of the scheme.
The total value of transfers on which Mr Armin advised was £125m, £74m of which related to the British Steel Pension Scheme. The average transfer value for customers advised by Mr Armin was approximately £298,000. RPPS received £2.2m in fees for all defined benefit pension transfer advice, 55% (approximately £1.2m) of which was retained by RPPS and Mr Armin. Mr Armin received a significant financial benefit from the advice he provided on defined benefit pension transfers. As a result, the fine the FCA has decided to impose on Mr Armin is seeking to remove the benefits he received.
Notes to editors

Decision notice – Geoffrey Edward Armin (PDF)
Find our more information about the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chambers).
Earlier this year, the FCA confirmed measures to improve the defined benefit pension transfer market. The finalised guidance can be read here. 
Regulating the pensions and retirement income sector: our joint regulatory strategy.
The FCA’s Principles for Businesses. 
The FCA’s defined benefit pension transfer advice checker.
Find out more information about the FCA.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The BDSwiss Group used the fact that one of its firms was regulated in the UK to convey legitimacy on the group as a whole. However, 99% of UK consumers taken on by the group traded through the group’s overseas entities. These overseas firms had no authorisation to provide regulated services in the UK, and consumers who traded with the overseas firms lost the protections given to consumers who trade with an authorised firm. In particular, the overseas firms did not comply with the FCA’s restrictions on the marketing and sale of CFDs to retail consumers.
Sarah Pritchard, Executive Director, Markets at the FCA said:
‘This group was selling high risk investments to UK investors in breach of our perimeter and the rules for CFDs we have put in place to protect retail investors.
‘Many investors were attracted to the firm via social media accounts.  Consumers should be very wary of those on social media making promises which look too good to be true and be careful where they invest their money. We have acted where we can but once again repeat our call for restrictions on this type of advertising to be included in the Online Safety Bill.’
The FCA identified serious concerns with the sales and marketing practices of the BDSwiss Group, including the use of misleading financial promotions which made unrealistic claims about the likely returns, failed to state clearly the nature of the financial instruments being marketed and failed to outline the risks involved in trading CFDs. The Group and its affiliates frequently contacted consumers directly, using social media platforms to make contact and market their products.
In many cases, social media showed the affiliates leading an opulent lifestyle which they claimed was being funded through trading and could be emulated, which was not the case. In fact, the affiliates were paid substantial commission for referring customers to the Group. 
As a result of the activities of the BDSwiss Group and these affiliates, numerous UK consumers have lost significant sums of money.
The FCA has required BDSwiss Holding Plc to stop conducting any regulated or marketing activities in the UK and has directed it to take all reasonable steps to stop other members of the BDSwiss Group doing the same. It has also ordered the firm to close all trading positions and return the money to customers.
The FCA has invested almost £2m in its ScamSmart campaign this year, targeting consumers at risk of investment scams, with adverts across search engines and social media sites. You can find out more about the ScamSmart campaign: and more specifically about forex scams. However, legislation is needed to tackle these types of scammers and the FCA has called on both the Government and social media platforms to protect consumers in this space and take more responsibility for this type of content. The FCA has already issued 933 warnings this year about scams.
Notes to editors

First Supervisory Notice: BDSwiss Holding Plc (PDF)
BDSwiss Holding Plc was operating in the UK under the Temporary Permission Regime (TPR), put in place for firms who used to operate in the UK under the European Economic Area passporting regime and who wished to continue to operate here following the UK’s exit from the European Union. Firms operate under the TPR until their applications for full authorisation by the FCA can be considered.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA alleged, and the High Court found, that Avacade Limited (in liquidation), AA, Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis and Raymond Fox engaged in arranging and promoting investments without FCA authorisation and made false and misleading statements to investors which induced them to transfer their pensions into self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) and then into alternative investments such as HotPods (office space available for rent), tree plantations and Brazilian property developments. 
The appeal was brought by AA, Craig and Lee Lummis and today’s decision by the Court of Appeal upholds these findings.
Mark Steward, the FCA’s Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight said: ‘The Court of Appeal decision vindicates the original decision and will help vindicate the rights of more than 2,000 investors who have lost pension money through the defendants’ conduct in leading them into these toxic and high risk investments.’
More than 2,000 consumers transferred in the region of £91.8m from their pensions into SIPPs. Approximately £68m of that amount was invested in products promoted by Avacade and AA and approximately £905,000 was invested into a fixed rate bond relating to a Brazilian property development. From these investments Avacade and AA earned commissions in the region of £10.8m. 
Many of the underlying investments have failed or are in liquidation. 
Next steps 
Following an application from the FCA, the High Court made an order in August 2020 against Avacade, AA, Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis and Raymond Fox to pay a total of £10,715,000 in restitution to members of the public who were induced to transfer their pensions into SIPPs. Today’s decision opens the way for the order to be enforced by the FCA by taking steps to recover monies from the Defendants, so that it can return them to the investors. 
Any Avacade/AA customers who believe they may have lost money and have not previously been contacted by the FCA about this matter, should contact the FCA to provide their details.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

This application is the latest in several legal proceedings commenced by the FCA against Mr Gopee arising out of his illegal money lending activities.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said: ‘Unauthorised money-lending is a criminal offence and causes serious harm, often to vulnerable communities. Mr Gopee’s offending caused substantial harm to a large number of vulnerable consumers. The order obtained today will ensure Mr Gopee’s hold over properties owned by his victims is relinquished, by removing charges, notices and restrictions that he obtained in carrying out his illegal activities and which he continued to hold.’
Between 2012 and 2016, Mr Gopee acted as an illegal lender despite being refused a consumer credit license by the OFT, and without authorisation from the FCA after 1 April 2014. He loaned money to vulnerable consumers at high rates, securing the loans against their property.  He then sought to take possession of consumers’ homes if they failed to pay. Over the 4-year period, his own loan books showed that he issued approximately £1 million of new loans and took in at least £2 million in payments from old and new consumers, none of whom were aware that he did not have the required consumer credit license.
Whilst the FCA was investigating Mr Gopee’s misconduct, the FCA obtained a restraint order against him under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in June 2015. The FCA then brought two sets of proceedings against Mr Gopee for contempt of court in relation to repeated breaches of that restraint order. In April 2016, having denied various breaches of the restraint order – including failing to disclose assets, continuing to deal with assets, opening and using new accounts – he was found to be in contempt and imprisoned for a term of 18 months. He was released early by the court in September 2016 having promised to comply with the order. However, he went on to commit various additional breaches. Further proceedings were brought against him, and on this second occasion, having admitted the new breaches, he was imprisoned for a term of 15 months in October 2017.
Following the FCA’s investigation, Mr Gopee was convicted and sentenced to three and half years’ imprisonment for offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Services & Markets Act, 2000. When sentencing Mr Gopee on 9 February 2018, trial judge HHJ Beddoe noted that Mr Gopee was aware of the FCA’s serious concerns, but ignored them, deciding instead to ‘…deliberately flout the law’ ignoring the fact that he had lost his consumer credit licence, and endeavoured to enforce agreements he knew were unenforceable but that debtors did not. He continued to pressurise debtors with demands for payment, threatening court action that he knew could not be sustained.
The FCA then secured a confiscation order against Mr Gopee in the sum of £5,118,018.72. The effect of the order was to require Mr Gopee to disgorge the value of his criminal proceeds as an illegal money lender. Mr Gopee was also ordered to pay almost £230,000 in compensation to consumers. He also continues to be subject to a Serious Crime Prevention Order, which imposes financial restrictions upon him for five years.
Today’s action benefits hundreds of Mr Gopee’s victims by removing entries registered against their properties by Mr Gopee’s illegal activities. 
The charges, notices and restrictions are registered in the names of the following companies, formerly under the control of Mr Gopee but now in liquidation: Barons Finance Ltd, Euro Business Finance PLC, Ghana Commercial Investments Ltd, Reddy Corporation Ltd, Barons Finance 1 Ltd, Ghana Commercial Finance Ltd, Barons Bridging Finance 1 Ltd, Pangold Estate Ltd, Moneylink Finance Ltd, Speedy Bridging Finance Ltd, Agni Estates Ltd and Pangold Investments Ltd.
Notes to editors
1.    The FCA’s press release in relation to the prosecution action dated 9 February 2018.2.    The FCA’s Press Release in relation to the confiscation order dated 11 December 2019.3.    The FCA has an overarching strategic objective of ensuring the relevant markets function well. To support this, it has three operational objectives: to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers; to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system; and to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA is consulting on moving some decision-making from its Regulatory Decisions Committee (RDC) to its Authorisations, Supervision and Enforcement Divisions. This will give greater responsibility for decisions to senior members of FCA staff close to the matters.
As part of the FCA’s transformation, the FCA is making changes to ensure that it will continue to be more innovative, assertive and adaptive. The changes proposed today will involve streamlining the FCA decision-making and governance so it can move more quickly to stop and prevent harm faster.
Emily Shepperd, Executive Director of Authorisations said:
‘The proposed changes will allow us to be more efficient by making best use of the breadth of expertise across the FCA and by putting certain decisions back to the subject matter experts. As a result of that there will be greater accountability in those areas. The changes will help to increase the speed and reduce the regulatory costs of dealing with firms and individuals that fail to meet the FCA standards.
‘As part of our transformation we will continue to take a fresh approach to tackle firms and individuals who do not meet the required standards. As part of this, we aim to become a forward looking, proactive regulator – one that is tough, assertive, confident, decisive and agile.’
The RDC is a committee of the FCA Board. At present it takes certain decisions on behalf of the FCA. The consultation is proposing that certain decisions will now be made by FCA staff including:  

imposing a requirement on a firm or varying its permissions by limiting or removing certain types of business 
making a final decision in relation to a firm’s application for authorisation or an individual’s approval that has been challenged 
making a final decision to cancel a firm’s permissions because a firm does not meet the FCA’s regulatory requirements
the decision to start civil and/or criminal proceedings 

The RDC will continue to make decisions in relation to contentious enforcement cases, where the FCA is proposing a disciplinary sanction or seeking to impose a prohibition order.
The consultation closes on 17 September 2021. Following this consultation, the FCA will consider the feedback and aims to publish a Policy Statement in or around November 2021.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA is consulting on changes to its Listing Rules to require listed companies to publish annually: 

A ‘comply or explain statement’ on whether they have achieved certain proposed targets (see notes to editors) for gender and ethnic minority representation on their boards, and 
As part of the same annual disclosure obligation, data on the make-up of their board and most senior level of executive management in terms of gender and ethnicity  

The FCA is also proposing changes to its disclosure and transparency rules to require companies to ensure any existing disclosure on diversity policies addresses key board committees (see notes to editors) and also considers broader aspects of diversity. This could include, for example, considerations of ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, lower socio-economic background and other diversity characteristics. The FCA also encourages companies to provide further data on the result of their diversity policies considering these wider aspects where possible.
The Listing Rule diversity targets are not mandatory for companies to meet, so the FCA is not setting ‘quotas’, but providing a positive benchmark for issuers to report against. The proposals would apply to UK and overseas companies with equity shares in either the premium or standard listing segments of the FCA’s Official List, while the disclosure and transparency changes apply to companies with securities traded on UK regulated markets, such as the Main Market of the London Stock Exchange.
While some companies may already provide diversity disclosures to existing voluntarily UK initiatives and in annual reports, the FCA’s measures will help ensure reporting beyond the largest listed companies and ensure more consistency. Its approach also provides flexibility for overseas companies, since the ‘comply or explain’ approach allows any national or cultural context to be explained. 
Clare Cole, Director of Market Oversight at the FCA commented on the proposals:  
 ‘There is a current lack of standardised and mandatory transparency about diversity on listed company boards, particularly outside the FTSE 350 who do not provide data to the voluntary initiatives in this area. But interest from investors is growing and companies are increasingly focusing on this topic due to ESG investing, as well as wider social and public policy concerns.  
‘Our proposals are intended to increase transparency by establishing better, comparable information on the diversity of companies’ boards and executive committees. This will provide better data for companies and investors to assess progress in these areas and make investment decisions, reduce investor search costs, and inform shareholder engagement, enhancing market integrity.  
‘Over time, we expect enhanced transparency may strengthen incentives for companies towards greater diversity on their boards and encourage a more strategic approach to diversity in their pipeline of talent. This may have broader benefits in terms of the quality of corporate governance and company performance in due course.’  
The FCA’s proposals aim to build on progress achieved under existing initiatives to improve diversity on the boards of the largest UK companies. Such initiatives include the Hampton-Alexander Review and Parker Review, and similar initiatives in international markets.   
The changes also follow the FCA’s recent discussion paper published earlier in July, exploring how to promote diversity and inclusion across the financial services sector as a whole. Diversity will be an ongoing focus for the FCA, beyond the proposals it sets out here.  
The FCA is consulting for 12 weeks on these proposals, with a closing date of 22 October 2021. Subject to consultation feedback and FCA Board approval, it will seek to make relevant rules by late 2021. 
Notes to editors

The ‘comply or explain’ statement targets are as follows: 

At least 40% of the board should be women (including those self-identifying as women). 
At least one of the senior board positions (Chair, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Senior Independent Director (SID) should be a woman (including individuals that self-identify as a woman.  
At least one member of the board should be from a Non-White ethnic minority background (as defined by the Office for National Statistics).

‘Key board committees’ include those required under the UK Corporate Governance Code, specifically committees on audit, remuneration and nominations. 
The scope of the Listing Rule proposals includes UK and overseas companies with equity shares, or equity shares represented by certificates (including global depositary receipts), admitted to either the premium or standard listing segments of the FCA’s Official List in the UK or considering admission to such listings.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Today, at Southwark Crown Court, His Honour Judge Tomlinson sentenced Ian James Hudson to 4 years’ imprisonment for one count of fraudulent trading, with two additional terms of 14 months, each reflecting a breach of s19 FMSA, to run concurrently following his earlier guilty plea. This followed charges laid by the FCA namely carrying on a business, Richmond Associates, for a fraudulent purpose and carrying on regulated activities when not authorised or exempt.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said:
‘Mr Hudson’s defrauding was calculated and persistent over a number of years, preying on victims who believed he was a financial adviser and trusted friend when he was neither of these things. We remind investors to check the FCA’s register of authorised person to ensure any financial adviser is authorised to provide financial advice by the FCA.’
Between 1 January 2008 and 31 July 2019, Mr Hudson advised on regulated mortgages, pensions and other investments and purported to invest significant deposits received by him from clients on their behalf. At no point during this time was he authorised by the FCA to undertake these, or any, financial services, as is required by law. 
In addition, while Mr Hudson told clients that the money they deposited with his business, Richmond Associates, would be invested in various financial vehicles or otherwise put to specific uses, this was not always the case. Instead he used those deposits to re-pay existing clients, to make payments to other individuals, or to fund his own lifestyle. In total, approximately £2m was deposited by Mr Hudson’s clients.
Confiscation proceedings are being pursued by the FCA. Any sums recovered from Mr Hudson will be used to compensate victims.
Notes to editors:

Ian Hudson’s date of birth: 16 April 1966
Previous press release. 
If you believe you have suffered a financial loss as a result of dealing with Ian Hudson, please email [email protected]

Mr Hudson was charged with the following criminal offences between January 2008 and July 2019:

Participating in a fraudulent business, namely Richmond Associates, contrary to section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006;
Carrying on a regulated activity (namely, accepting deposits), without authorisation or exemption, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and
Carrying on a regulated activity (namely, advising on investments) without authorisation or exemption, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA brought proceedings against chief executive, Toby Scott Whittaker, director John Slater and a number of companies involved or connected to the Park First Scheme. A number of further companies involved in the Park First Scheme entered administration in July 2019 and November 2020.
The agreement is conditional on Park First investors approving Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) in respect of these companies, which will give them a say about whether these arrangements and the conditional agreement are acceptable.
The conditional agreement provides for a further £25 million to be available to the investors, on top of the £33 million already secured by the FCA out of the proceeds of the sale of the car park at Luton airport.
Mr Whittaker will need to realise most of his assets to pay the sum of £25 million, which will be paid in instalments on the sale of the assets. If any instalment is unpaid, Mr Whittaker has agreed not to contest the debt for the purpose of any bankruptcy proceedings brought by the FCA.
The full details of the conditional agreement will be set out in the proposals for the CVAs which investors will be able to vote on.
If the arrangements are approved, the defendants will consent to orders that they breached section 19 of the Financial Services & Markets Act, 2000 by operating a collective investment scheme without being authorised by the FCA as required. This admission only applies to the FCA’s case. If the investors do not approve the arrangements and the conditional agreement, the FCA’s proceedings against the defendants will continue.  The trial is fixed for hearing in February 2022.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA said: ‘The agreement, if approved, represents a better outcome in the proceedings for investors than could have achieved through continued legal action, given the financial position of the parties.  It also gives investors the final say on the merits of the conditional agreement.’
The FCA first intervened with Park First in 2016, stopping the operation and promotion of the original scheme.  Following the FCA’s action, the scheme was restructured, and investors were offered the chance to get their initial investment back or move into a different scheme. However, the operation proved to be uneconomic and the companies involved in running the scheme entered into administration in July 2019.
Notes for editors

The full list of defendants to the FCA’s claim is as follows: Park First Limited; Harley Scott Residential Limited (previously known as Park First Glasgow Limited); Park First Skyport Limited; Cophall Parking Gatwick Limited; Park First Management Limited; Paypark Limited; Help-Me-Park.com Limited; Group First Global Limited; Toby Scott Whittaker and John Slater.
Park First Freeholds Limited; Park First Glasgow Rentals Limited, Park First Gatwick Rentals Limited and Help Me Park Gatwick Limited entered administration in July 2019. Airport Parking Rentals (Gatwick) Limited and Paypark Limited entered administration in November 2020.
The full list of companies that are to propose CVAs is as follows: Park First Limited; Harley Scott Residential Limited (previously known as Park First Glasgow Limited); Park First Skyport Limited; Cophall Parking Gatwick Limited; Park First Management Limited; Paypark Limited; Help-Me-Park.com Limited; Group First Global Limited; Park First Freeholds Limited; Park First Glasgow Rentals Limited; Park First Gatwick Rentals Limited; Help Me Park Gatwick Limited; Airport Parking Rentals (Gatwick) Limited; Paypark Limited.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

Today, at Southwark Crown Court, His Honour Judge Tomlinson sentenced Ian James Hudson to 4 years’ imprisonment for one count of fraudulent trading, with two additional terms of 14 months, each reflecting a breach of s19 FMSA, to run concurrently following his earlier guilty plea. This followed charges laid by the FCA namely carrying on a business, Richmond Associates, for a fraudulent purpose and carrying on regulated activities when not authorised or exempt.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said:
‘Mr Hudson’s defrauding was calculated and persistent over a number of years, preying on victims who believed he was a financial adviser and trusted friend when he was neither of these things. We remind investors to check the FCA’s register of authorised person to ensure any financial adviser is authorised to provide financial advice by the FCA.’
Between 1 January 2008 and 31 July 2019, Mr Hudson advised on regulated mortgages, pensions and other investments and purported to invest significant deposits received by him from clients on their behalf. At no point during this time was he authorised by the FCA to undertake these, or any, financial services, as is required by law. 
In addition, while Mr Hudson told clients that the money they deposited with his business, Richmond Associates, would be invested in various financial vehicles or otherwise put to specific uses, this was not always the case. Instead he used those deposits to re-pay existing clients, to make payments to other individuals, or to fund his own lifestyle. In total, approximately £2m was deposited by Mr Hudson’s clients.
Confiscation proceedings are being pursued by the FCA. Any sums recovered from Mr Hudson will be used to compensate victims.
Notes to editors:

Ian Hudson’s date of birth: 16 April 1966
Previous press release. 
If you believe you have suffered a financial loss as a result of dealing with Ian Hudson, please email [email protected]

Mr Hudson was charged with the following criminal offences between January 2008 and July 2019:

Participating in a fraudulent business, namely Richmond Associates, contrary to section 9 of the Fraud Act 2006;
Carrying on a regulated activity (namely, accepting deposits), without authorisation or exemption, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and
Carrying on a regulated activity (namely, advising on investments) without authorisation or exemption, contrary to section 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA has also published correspondence between Sheldon Mills and Dean Beale, CEO of the Insolvency Service setting out how the 2 organisations are approaching these issues and working together to protect consumers who need debt advice and ensuring co-ordinated regulation across the 2 organisations.
Debt packager firms advise consumers on how to deal with their debts, often referring them to an Insolvency Practitioner or debt management firm, for which they receive referral fees. These fees can be many times higher when the firms refer consumers to an Insolvency Practitioner to potentially enter into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA), or Protected Trust Deed (PTD) in Scotland, than for other debt solutions. The FCA has made very clear to firms that it expects them to manage this conflict of interest to ensure that their advice is right for consumers, not just firms’ financial interests.
The FCA has identified concerns that some debt packager firms appear to have manipulated consumers’ income and expenditure to meet the criteria for an IVA or PTD; used persuasive language to promote these products to consumers without fully explaining the risks involved; and provided advice that did not accurately reflect their conversations with consumers or information that consumers had given. In some cases, the FCA’s view is that firms failed to sufficiently take into account consumers’ circumstances and vulnerabilities, including mental health issues and economic abuse.
Sheldon Mills, Executive Director, Consumers and Competition at the FCA, commented: ‘The practices we’ve seen in this sector fall far short of the standards we expect from firms, let alone those claiming to offer help to people in need. We will not allow firms to profit from debt advice which puts their customers at risk of harm.’
Following the review, the FCA wrote to 5 firms identifying significant concerns over their practices and making clear its concern that the firms were continuing to offer advice to consumers while those issues remained unresolved. The firms all subsequently applied for voluntary requirements to be imposed, which mean that they can no longer provide regulated advice services until the FCA is satisfied that they can comply with the rules.
The FCA has also used its formal powers to remove another firm’s permission to provide debt advice. This firm was using a script for contact with consumers that appeared weighted towards recommending a debt solution that would have generated a referral fee for the firm, whether or not that was suitable for individual consumers.
As part of its priority work to ensure that consumer credit markets work well for consumers, set out in its Business Plan for 2021-22, the FCA is also considering policy changes to address the significant potential for harm through poor advice that the debt packager business model poses. If it concludes that changes are needed, the FCA will consult on proposals later this year.
Consumers who are wrongly advised to sign up to an IVA or PTD may suffer significant harm. They may struggle to keep up the repayments and if they cannot do so, their IVA/PTD may fail. If it fails at an early stage, repayments already made may have largely gone towards the fees for the IVA/PTD rather than paying down debts; they may have backdated interest and charges added to outstanding balances by creditors; and they could be made bankrupt.
There are wider concerns about debt advice and the market for IVAs and PTDs which sit beyond the remit of the FCA, as described in the Woolard Review published by the FCA earlier this year.
Consumers who need help with their debts can get free and impartial advice from the MoneyHelper website or by telephone on 0800 138 7777, provided by the Money and Pensions Service.
Notes to Editors

The 5 firms which applied for voluntary requirements are listed below. Please note that the FCA is not attributing any of the specific practices found in its review of the debt packager market, as listed above, to any of these individual firms:

The firm whose permission to provide debt advice was removed using formal FCA powers is Action On CIO (770254) https://register.fca.org.

[Read More] […]

Read More…

The FCA and Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) have published an updated assessment of the UK’s access to cash infrastructure, taking into account the impact of coronavirus (Covid-19), alongside new research on consumers who rely on cash.
The findings show that most people have reasonable access to cash through a combination of bank, building society, or Post Office branches and ATMs. The FCA and PSR estimate that 95.4% of the UK population are within 2km of a free cash access point and 99.7% are within 5 km.
Consumers’ ability to access banking services and cash can be affected when banks and ATM providers make decisions to close branches and cash machines.
In September 2020 the FCA published guidance on how it expects firms to approach branch and ATMs closures or conversions to make sure their customers are treated fairly. In May 2021 the FCA and PSR published a joint statement on their work to date and the FCA also reaffirmed its expectations for industry at the Which? Cash Summit.
The PSR recently published its second annual review of Specific Direction 8 (SD8) which ensures LINK does all it can to make free-to-use ATMs available for UK consumers. It has decided SD8 should remain in place until it expires in January 2022. The PSR will continue to monitor LINK’s commitment and how it is being met. The PSR is currently considering whether to issue a new direction to replace SD8 when it expires.     
Since then, the Treasury has launched a consultation  on establishing geographic requirements for the provision of cash withdrawal and deposit facilities, the designation of firms for meeting these requirements, and establishing further regulatory oversight of cash service provision.
Sheldon Mills, Executive Director, Consumers and Competition at the FCA said:
‘Around 5 million adults say they still rely on cash, and we know that where access is removed, it can affect the most vulnerable in society. This is why we have intervened in the past to provide banks with guidance on what to consider when closing branches.
‘Our research shows that most of the UK population have reasonable access to cash: 95.4% are within 2km of a free cash access point. But there are still pockets of consumers, some displaying characteristics of vulnerability, who do not have sufficient access to cash. We expect firms to help protect access to cash and wider banking services in ways that meet consumers’ needs, and we continue to engage with firms closing their branches, to ensure that they treat their customers fairly. We will also review over the coming months how we can strengthen our guidance to help protect reasonable access to cash and banking services.’
The FCA and the PSR will continue to work with Government to prepare for legislation, and with industry and other stakeholders on cash access issues. The FCA intends to update on the next steps on its work in Q4 this year.
Updated assessment of access to cash in the UK
Today’s publications give a broad overview of the evidence on the UK’s access to cash and will inform ongoing work to ensure consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can access the cash they need.

Access to Cash Coverage: 2021 Q1 Data, produced jointly with the PSR: Provides an overview of the UK’s geographical cash access coverage, including bank, building society, or Post Office branches and ATMs, at the end of the first quarter of 2021. It is the first in a series of planned quarterly updates that will monitor coverage over time. 
External consumer research: Building on our Financial Lives 2020 survey which found that 10% of adults said they relied on cash for all or most of their daily purchases, we commissioned this research to understand these consumers’ cash access needs and to get insight into their demographic and vulnerability characteristics. 

Key findings

Most people have reasonable access to cash. This is provided through a combination of bank, building society, or Post Office branches and ATMs. We estimate that 95.4% of the UK population are within 2km of a free cash access point and 99.7% are within 5 km.
Rural access to cash is lower than urban access. The rural population travel further to withdraw and deposit cash which can reflect higher distances to all services such as shops, facilities and public services. For those living in the UK’s urban areas, 99.7% have access to a free source of cash within 2km. This falls to 76.6% of the UK rural population. When considering the 5km distance, 98.2% of the UK rural population are within a free source of cash. Overall, we estimate that 99% of the UK rural population have access to a free source of cash within 5.7km.
Many consumers say they rely on cash. Our research with Savanta ComRes shows that when access is removed, there is a risk of harm for those who depend on cash often because of a characteristic of vulnerability such as ill health, a life event, low financial resilience or low financial or digital capability. We are working to prevent that harm from happening.

For more information view our Access to cash page.

[Read More] […]

Read More…