Question of legal nature of betting scheme under FSMA 2000 considered by Court of Appeal
| Pages | 217-221 |
| Date | 01 April 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980610659521 |
| Published date | 01 April 2006 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMMENTARY
Question of legal nature of betting
scheme under FSMA 2000
considered by Court of Appeal
Joanna Gray
Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – To provide a summary of the action against Top Bet Placement Services, involving a
betting scheme that infringed FSMA 2000.
Design/methodology/approach – A detailed exposition of the factual background to this action,
including an explanation of how it changed its structure and operations over time in order to attempt
to allay concerns about infringements of FSMA 2000.
Findings – From the facts that have emerged in this case that sollcitors and counsel were involved
throughout this scheme’s existence and those concerned, including FSA, appear to have gone to
considerable lengths to clarify where exactly this betting scheme fitted into the FSMA legislative
framework and how.
Originality/value – Case law on the meaning of the terms used in scoping out the definition of
“collective investment scheme” is thin on the ground.
Keywords Law, Legal decisions
Paper type Viewpoint
Financial Services Authority vFradley (trading as Top Bet Placement Services)
and another (Court of Appeal: Civil Division, Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Arden,
Lord Justice Collins)
Date of Judgment: 23 November 2005
Facts
A detailed exposition of the factual background to this action, including an explanation
of how it changed its structure and operations over time in order to attempt to allay
concerns about infringements of FSMA 2000, was given in a note of the first instance
judgment in this case in Volume 13 (1) Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance
and is, for ease of reference extracted again below:
“The defendants, Mr Fradley and Mr Woodward had been associated with a
betting scheme operated by a company, 147 Racing Limited, referred to throughout the
judgment as “147”. This company, originally a defendant in this action too, was
wound up in January 2004 and Mr Woodward had been a director and company
secretary of it until October 2002 while Mr Fradley had traded on his own account
under the name of Top Bet Placement Services (“TBPS”). The essential characteristics
of the betting scheme with which this case was concerned were described by the Court
as follows:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
Legal and
regulatory
commentary
217
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2006
pp. 217-221
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980610659521
To continue reading
Request your trial