Court throws out FSA insider dealing case
Share
Andrew King and Michael McFall have been acquitted of insider dealing by the Southwark Crown Court.
The case against King, a finance director, and McFall, a lawyer was brought by the FSA .
Director of enforcement and financial crime Margaret Cole says: “Insider dealing cases are challenging to prove, but these were serious charges and we considered that the evidence provided a proper basis to put the case before a jury for them to decide.
“Criminal prosecutions are integral to the FSA’s long term strategy of delivering credible deterrence and combating insider dealing.
“We remain 100 per cent committed to the strategy of achieving credible deterrence. Bringing criminal prosecutions sends a message, loud and clear, that insider dealing is a serious crime and we are not afraid to pursue cases through the criminal courts.”
Andrew Rimmington was also on trial on the same charges but the Judge discharged the jury from considering the case against him midway through proceedings, for personal reasons.
Given the verdicts against McFall, the FSA has offered no evidence against Rimmington and not guilty verdicts have been entered in respect of him.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (13)
Incompetent Regulators Awards Team | 3 Jun 2010 3:32 pm
Another failure of the FSA which IFAs have to pick up the tab for. If they had to pay from their own pockets for failures they may not be so cavalier with the dosh!
Accountability is the key. They should pay for their failures themselves, donkeys!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 3 Jun 2010 3:36 pm
Presumably the FSA had to pay the other side's costs? I wonder how much this one cost us all?
A formal request under the FOI Act was recently submitted to the FSA. It asked the FSA to schedule all legal actions in which it been involved in recent times, how many of them it had won or lost and how much they'd all cost (us).
The provision of an answer was declined on the grounds that collating and scheduling this information would take too long and thus be too costly. A handy get out. Evidently, the FSA doesn't bother to keep very close track of such matters (why bother? It's not their money after all).
Has no one at Canary Wharf heard of data bases? Or accountability? (Well yes, but that's not part of the FSA agenda ~ never has been, has it?) What sums went into the FSA's year end accounts? Or were legal costs just lumped in amongst the assorted (multi-millions of pounds of) "miscellaneous and sundry items"?
Roll on the revolution.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 Jun 2010 3:37 pm
I am all in favour of individuals who deal while in possession of insider information being held to account, but if the evidence is not clear then it is the industry's money that is wasted and not those individuals representing the FSA. Surely, insider dealing is fairly straight forward.
It's all very well sending a warning to industry professionals but this is a very expensive way to warn us.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 Jun 2010 3:43 pm
Why don't some of you get off your backsides and go and work for the FSA if you feel so passionately about how they should be conducting themselves!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 3 Jun 2010 3:53 pm
I suspect it might be worth reading what the Judge said and looking at some of the evidence before we say too much and look silly. I generally agree with what anon 3:37 said above though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norm d' Plume | 3 Jun 2010 4:03 pm
The point Margaret Cole makes in this case is flawed, in that the matter didn't get to a Jury decision. The Judge decided no case to answer.
To my mind that indicates that the case should not have been brought.
Perhaps Julian Stevens should narrow his Freedom of Information Act request and ask the costs just for this case?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Veritas | 3 Jun 2010 4:11 pm
It is disconcerting to see the FSA's press release referring to 'the verdict AGAINST Mr McFall' (my capitals).
It was my belief that an acquittal was a verdict in favour of the defendant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 3 Jun 2010 4:59 pm
Look up Mike Fenwick's word calumny.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 Jun 2010 5:20 pm
Veritas has picked up on an interesting point i.e. Ms Cole continues to defame the chap, despite the fact he appears to have been found innocent.
Next we'll be hearing her criticise the judge for a poor decision just as she quoted him in a similar case where the FSA got a conviction http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2009/0910_mc.shtml
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/090.shtml
Surely they need to be VERY careful when someone has been found not guilty about teh statements they put out or they may get sued for what they have written. Oh sorry I've just woken up, I forget they are all immune from prosecution at the FSA.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Miller | 3 Jun 2010 5:49 pm
I am gobsmacked by the FSA's refusal to answer a very simple FOI request.
What I cannot rationalise in my mind is the very onerous and costly requirement for every single morsel of data that we as IFAs have to salt away and regurgitate for the FSA at a moment's notice, all the various registers we have to keep, all the Gabriel returns we have to spend our time dealing with, yet something as simple as a bit of information regarding expenditure on legal cases is completely beyond the capability of this most aweful organisation.
I can just see the response if my Gabriel report is a day late, and my reason is 'it's too time consuming and problemmatical' : £250 instant fine, followed in short measure by the closure of my business.
Ho hum.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment