In this episode Lindsey Rogerson and Rachel Wolcott discuss the UK Financial Conduct Authority’s updated version of its Enforcement Guide. They begin by recapping on the intentions behind proposals to change the “exceptional circumstance” test for disclosing if/when a financial services firm was under investigation.

They discuss the entirely foreseeable backlash and justifiable industry concern about naming firms when time for FCA to complete investigations was running at an average of 42 months.

The conversation then moves onto consider where the consultation landed on transparency and what if anything has really changed.

Rachel also shares some insight on the cost of prosecuting small scale insider dealing cases on the back of a response she received to a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

And Lindsey considers whether a House of Lords amendment to the UK Employees Rights might succeed in where PS25/5 failed in encouraging whistleblowers to come forward.

Links:

FCA spent over £300k on insider dealing duo who made £43k

Over 50% of FCA investigations are public

FCA policy statement 25/5: Our enforcement guide and greater transparency of enforcement investigations

House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee report: Naming and Shaming: How not to regulate

Recent FCA apologies to Collateral investors, FundingSecure customers, and Basset & Gold minibond investors for slowness in handling complaints about how these firms were authorised and supervised.