FSA has imposed a fine of £471,846 and issued a prohibition order against the inpidual, a former commercial insurance broker who used clients’ insurance premiums to fund his business. Between 2008 and 2010, Stephen Goodwin, a former partner of Goodwin Best in Bury, Lancashire and his (now deceased) business partner, accepted insurance premiums from clients, but sometimes paid this money into their business account rather than to the relevant insurer or intermediary to arrange the policy. In total, they misappropriated £303,846. The fine consists of the disgorgement of benefit of £303,846 and an additional £168,000 punitive element. The total fine, £471,846, is one of the largest ever levied on an inpidual for insurance fraud. FSA notes that at least three clients suffered financial loss: one tried to make a claim only to find they were uninsured and; two other clients paid the same premium twice to ensure their policies remained in force - these clients are now in contact with FSCS. Stephen Goodwin was declared bankrupt in April 2011 in relation to debts incurred by his firm and his bankruptcy was discharged in April 2012. The firm is no longer operating.

FSA has published this Final Notice which imposes a fine of £30,000 (reduced from £160,000 on the grounds of financial hardship) and a prohibition order on the inpidual. FSA took this action as a result of the inpidual’s conduct as a senior broker employed by Pacific Continental Securities (UK) Limited where he deliberately defied compliance procedures, acted against the interests of customers and disclosed inside information in order to improperly maximise sales by his team. On four separate occasions between January and April 2007, he was responsible for drafting sales scripts to be used by the firm’s brokers when trying to sell shares to customers over the telephone in which scripts the risk warnings and risk factors normally used by the firm were significantly watered down. He circulated these sales scripts to brokers knowing that they had not been approved by the firm’s compliance department (or one of the firm’s two directors) and knowing that he was not permitted to circulate non-approved scripts. In one of the four scripts, he also improperly disclosed inside information to his colleagues for use when trying to sell shares to customers. On about 27 March 2007, he obtained inside information that an AIM-traded company Provexis Plc had entered into an agreement (“the Collaboration Agreement”) with a major international company details of which would be announced shortly to the market. This information was not public and was price sensitive. Shortly thereafter, the inpidual circulated to brokers a sales script that contained inside information about the Collaboration Agreement and the forthcoming announcement. FSA had censured the firm in January 2009 and, had it not been in insolvent liquidation, would have imposed a financial penalty of £2,000,000. FSA also imposed fines and prohibition orders to the two directors of the firm in January 2009 .

FSA has published this Decision Notice setting out its reasons for objecting to the acquisition of at least 70% of the issued share capital of Think Finance.com by Ewa Karczewska. FSA’s concerns are summarised as lack of honesty and integrity; lack of reputation and experience directing the business; acquiring control without giving notice and repeated failure to comply with FSA requirements. In 2010, the inpidual had acquired 70% of the firm without seeking prior FSA approval and there FSA states that there is now “considerable confusion” regarding the ownership of the firm.

Further to the recent Upper Tribunal Decision, FSA has now published this Final Notice which imposes a financial penalty of £1,250,000 and a prohibition n the order with effect from 27 June 2012

Further to the recent Upper Tribunal Decision, FSA has now published this Final Notices which imposes a financial penalty of £75,000 and a prohibition n the order with effect from 27 June 2012).

FSA has fined Barclays Bank Plc £59.5m for misconduct relating to LIBOR and EURIBOR - the largest fine ever imposed by the FSA. Barclays’ breaches of the FSA’s requirements encompassed a number of issues, involved a significant number of employees and occurred over a number of years. Barclays’ misconduct included: making submissions which formed part of the LIBOR and EURIBOR setting process that took into account requests from Barclays’ interest rate derivatives traders. These traders were motivated by profit and sought to benefit Barclays’ trading positions; seeking to influence the EURIBOR submissions of other banks contributing to the rate setting process; and reducing its LIBOR submissions during the financial crisis as a result of senior management’s concerns over negative media comment. In addition, Barclays failed to have adequate systems and controls in place relating to its LIBOR and EURIBOR submissions processes until June 2010 and failed to review its systems and controls at a number of appropriate points. Barclays also failed to deal with issues relating to its LIBOR submissions when these were escalated to Barclays’ Investment Banking compliance function in 2007 and 2008. BBA is currently undertaking a review of the way LIBOR is set and will publish its findings shortly. It is noted that FSA, along with the other tripartite authorities, is working to support market-led reviews of existing arrangements, with the goal of ensuring such arrangements continue to command the confidence of all stakeholders. FSA also thanks CFTC, DoJ, FBI and SEC for their cooperation in this investigation, adding that CFT brought attempted manipulation and false reporting charges against Barclays for similar failings, which the bank agreed to settle. CFTC imposed a penalty of US$200 million. In addition, as part of an agreement with the DOJ, Barclays admitted to its misconduct and agreed to pay a penalty of US$160 million.

FSA has published a Final Notice censuring the firm for a breach of Principle 2 on the grounds that it failed to consider promptly and properly whether liquidity stresses in Kaupthing Bank Hf (its Icelandic parent, regulated by the FME in Iceland) would have a detrimental effect on its own liquidity position. It outlines how the firm did not give proper consideration to, or properly monitor, a special financing arrangement with its parent company in Iceland, under which it could draw up to £1bn at short notice. The firm assumed it could rely on receiving this £1bn 'Liquidity Transformation Arrangement', if needed, without testing that assumption. In addition, when it started to have concerns about this liquidity arrangement, it failed to discuss these concerns with FSA in a timely manner. In the statement, FSA emphasises that it has published this notice to ensure that other regulated firms understand the importance of complying with FSA's liquidity guidelines and that where compliance is dependent on liquidity arrangements with a parent company, the ability to exercise these arrangements is rigorously tested rather than assumed. Following the conclusion of the investigation, Sigurdur Einarsson (former non-exec chairman), Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson Iformer non-exec director) and Armann Thorvaldsson (former CEO) of the firm have provided undertakings to FSA that they will not perform any significant influence functions requiring the approval of FSA at any UK authorised firms for a period of five years from 8 October 2008, the date at which the firm was placed into administration. FSA has not made any findings of regulatory breach against them and they have not made any admissions. FSA notes that the closure of this investigation is independent of any ongoing investigations surrounding Kaupthing Bank Hf, currently being carried out by other UK and international overseas agencies.

In this press release, FSA notes that James Sanders, a director of Blue Index, a specialist CFD brokerage, his wife Miranda Sanders and James Swallow, a co-director of Blue Index, have today been sentenced for insider dealing contrary to s52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. James Sanders was sentenced to four years in custody and disqualified as a director for five years; Miranda Sanders was sentenced to 10 months in custody; and James Swallow was sentenced to 10 months in custody. Confiscation and costs orders will be dealt with at a later date. FSA notes that the case involved a parallel investigation by SEC, DoJ and FBI resulting in action taken against two inpiduals in the US, detailed in this press release.

By these Final Notices, FSA issued a prohibition order against the inpidual, CEO of this small mortgage intermediary and publicly censured the firm and cancelled its Part IV permission. The firm entered into liquidation in 2010 and it is noted that FSA would have imposed a fine of £70,000 were it not for its financial circumstances. The firm had advised approximately 738 customers to take out interest only mortgages with a mortgage accelerator plan it had developed operated by a sister company. It charged an upfront fee and additional brokerage fee for the plan, but FSA notes that it amounted to an unregulated product and the firm was giving regulated advice to its customers on the plan. FSA considers that the plan was the main reason the firm recommended customers to take interest only mortgages and thus failed to pay due regard to customers’ interests. It did not disclose to customers that monies would be collected by the separate unauthorised sister firm. It misrepresented to customers that their funds would be ring fenced, but failed to make sure this was the case. As a result, customers have lost 45% of their funds held in the plan at the time both firms went into liquidation. The inpidual failed to ensure that the firm paid due regard to customers’ interests in recommending interest only mortgages with the plan to customers, regardless of whether that arrangement was the most appropriate or cost effective for the customer; failed to ensure that presentations and illustrations purporting to compare the recommended package with repayment mortgages were clear, fair and not misleading; failed to comply with his regulatory responsibilities, by failing to cooperate fully with FSA and by failing, to date, to repay his director’s loan to the firm ultimately to the detriment of consumers; and failed to ensure customers’ monies were adequately identified and protected, in his capacity as a director.

Further to the recent Upper Tribunal hearing, FSA has now cancelled the Part IV permission of this inpidual.