The recent high-profile case of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) versus Paul ‘the Plumber’ Davison – who was fined £750,000 for market abuse and has subsequently managed to force the whole tribunal hearing his appeal to resign – has shown that regulated firms and individuals are increasingly prepared to dispute the findings of the FSA. That case, along with the failure of the authority to force the financial advisers in the ‘split caps’ case to the negotiating table, has shown that it is possible to take the super-regulator on in a legal battle and win.
Action by the FSA arises in a number of contexts – market abuse, money laundering, breaches of the FSA Principles for business – and can result in combined civil, criminal and regulatory action. But the regulatory enforcement process set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) is different in a number of significant ways from the more familiar court-based litigation process.
