Objection to terms of FSA decision notice heard by Financial Services and Markets Tribunal
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980810853271 |
| Pages | 116-119 |
| Published date | 22 February 2008 |
| Date | 22 February 2008 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL COMMENTARY
Objection to terms of FSA
decision notice heard by Financial
Services and Markets Tribunal
Joanna Gray
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to outline the objections to terms of FSA decision notice heard
by the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines the facts surrounding the decision and
comments on the ruling.
Findings – It was found that this ruling shows the difficulty facing senior individuals who have
worked in head of compliance and other senior management functions within firms which are
subsequently subject to discipline and enforcement for breaches of FSA rules and principles in relation
to corporate governance, systems and controls and other serious compliance failings.
Originality/value – This paper provides useful information for those working in a senior
management role.
Keywords Legal decisions, S enior managers
Paper type Viewpoint
(Jan Laury v. Financial Serv ices Authority, Case no 046 Financial Services and Markets
Tribunal; Andrew Bartlett QC as Tribunal Chairman)
Date of decision: 18 July 2007
Facts
The applicant, Mr Laury had been head of compliance at W Deb MVL plc (formerly
Williams De Broe plc) until 20 June 2002. In January 2007, the FSA had issued a
decision notice in enforcement proceedings against W Deb MVL plc (the firm), swiftly
followed by a final notice requiring the firm to pay a penalty of £560,000 for breaches
of the FSA’s Principles for Business and rules relating primarily to accounting systems
and controls the client asset rules. The relevant breaches related to the time period
1 December 2001-3 May 2005. Some of this time period overlapped with the applicant’s
tenure at the firm and when he heard of the FSA investigation into his former employer
he had contacted FSA offering himself available for interview if required. He was not
interviewed by FSA. The final notice that the FSA published in relation to the firm was
some 25 pages long and gave reasons for its decision including the following (extracted
from the FSA’s Final Notice of 15 January 2007):
2.1 The FSA has decided to impose a financial penalty on the Firm for failures in its senior
management arrangements, systems and controls and its failures to adhere to the regulatory
requirements relating to accounting procedures and records, the Firm’s own stock positions,
client money and compliance. As a result of these failures, the Firm has acted in
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
JFRC
16,1
116
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 16 No. 1, 2008
pp. 116-119
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980810853271
To continue reading
Request your trial