THOMAS SEILER and LOUISE WHITESTONE v THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY [2023] UKUT 00270 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE TIMOTHY HERRINGTON |
| Subject Matter | 9 November 2023 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 14 November 2023 |
Neutral Citation: [2023] UKUT 00270 (TCC)
Case Numbers: UT/2021/000137 & 000138
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(Tax and Chancery Chamber) Hearing Venue: The Rolls Building
London EC4A 1NL
FINANCIAL SERVICES – costs - whether all or any part of costs claimed by successful
applicants should be awarded – whether the referred decisions were unreasonable-
whether the Authority conducted the proceedings unreasonably - Tribunal Procedure Upper
Tribunal) Rules 2008 rule 10 (3) (d) and (e)
Heard on: 23 October 2023
Judgment date: 9 November 2023
Before
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE TIMOTHY HERRINGTON
(Sitting in Retirement)
Between
THOMAS SEILER
LOUISE WHITESTONE Applicants
and
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY The Authority
Representation:
For Mr Seiler: Ben Strong KC and Constantine Fraser, Counsel, instructed by Mishcon de
Reya LLP
For Mrs Whitestone: Sarah Clarke KC, Counsel, instructed by Charles Douglas Solicitors LLP
2
For the Authority: Andrew George KC, Celia Rooney and Ava Mayer, Counsel, instructed by
the Financial Conduct Authority
3
DECISION
Introduction
On 23 June 2021 the Financial Conduct Authority (“the Authority”) through its Regulatory
Decisions Committee (“RDC”), issued Decision Notices to each of Mr Thomas Seiler, Mrs Louise
Whitestone and Mr Gustavo Raitzin (together “the Applicants”).
In those Decision Notices the Authority decided to make orders prohibiting each of the Applicants
from performing any function in relation to any regulated activities carried on by an authorised or
exempt person, or exempt professional firm, pursuant to section 56 of the Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).
Each of the Applicants referred their respective Decision Notices to the Tribunal. The subject
matter of the references was the conduct of the Applicants in respect of arrangements entered into in
July 2010 by Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd (“BJB”) with Mr Dmitri Merinson, an individual connected
with the Yukos group of companies (“Yukos Group”), pursuant to which it was contemplated that Mr
Merinson would introduce companies within the Yukos Group to banks within the Julius Baer group
of companies (“Julius Baer Group”) and would receive remuneration for doing so.
The Authority alleges that Julius Baer’s conduct in its relationship with the Yukos Group
demonstrated a lack of integrity. They say that Julius Baer must have appreciated the clear risk that,
by entering into the arrangements with Mr Merinson, it might be facilitating or participating in
financial crime.
Each of the Applicants had roles within Julius Baer and was involved in the arrangements
described above. However, on the Authority’s case, each Applicant had very different levels of
responsibility and knowledge. In short:
(1) Mrs Whitestone was employed as a relationship manager by Julius Baer International
Limited (“JBI”), Julius Baer’s UK regulated subsidiary. Mrs Whitestone was the
Relationship Manager for the Yukos accounts which are relevant to these references and
the principal Julius Baer point of contact for both Mr Feldman, the sole director of the
relevant Yukos entity, and Mr Merinson.
(2) Mr Seiler was employed as the Sub-Regional (Market) Head for Russia and Central
and Eastern Europe at BJB in Switzerland and was Mrs Whitestone’s functional line
manager. In that role, he had responsibility for considering, and providing approval of,
certain aspects of the relevant arrangements and payments.
(3) Mr Raitzin was employed as the Regional Head for Latin America, Spain, Russia,
Central and Eastern Europe and Israel at BJB in Switzerland and was Mr Seiler’s line
manager. In that role, he was responsible under Julius Baer’s written policies, for the final
approval of the payments to Mr Merinson.
The Authority decided to make the prohibition orders referred to at [2] above because the
Authority had concluded that each of the Applicants had acted recklessly and with a lack of integrity
in respect of the events arising from the relationship between Julius Baer and Yukos and the dealings
with Mr Merinson. In essence, the Authority’s case against the Applicants was that they lacked
integrity on the sole ground that they disregarded risks of which they were actually aware that Julius
Baer might be facilitating or participating in financial crime by participating in the arrangements with
Mr Merinson. The Authority decided that each of the Applicants lacked integrity on the basis of
To continue reading
Request your trial