View more on these topics

FCA bans ex-Keydata compliance officer but rules out £200k fine

FCA logo new 3 620x430

The FCA has banned and publicly censured former Keydata compliance officer Peter Johnson for failing to act with integrity and misleading the FCA.

Johnson had lodged an appeal with the Upper Tribunal against the regulatory action, but has since withdrawn his appeal. Upper Tribunal cases will still be held in relation to former Keydata chief executive Stewart Ford and former sales director Mark Owen.

The regulator says it would have fined Johnson £200,000 were it not due to serious financial hardship.

The FCA found Johnson failed to act with integrity as he knew Keydata had received advice that its financial promotions were unclear and misleading, but failed to take steps to address this.

Keydata had also been advised its due diligence was inadequate, and the Lifemark and SLS portfolios, which underpinned Keydata’s investments into life settlement policies, was underperforming.

The FCA says Johnson failed to take the recommended steps to improve its processes, and failed to ensure risks were managed effectively.

Johnson was also found to have failed to communicate the risks to advisers who sold Keydata products.

The regulator says Johnson “deliberately misled” the FSA when he called in for regulatory interviews, saying there had never been a product in paying income on the Keydata investments. This was despite the fact Johnson was aware of severe liquidity risks within the portfolio.

In the final notice, the FCA says: “The authority considers that Mr Johnson’s failings in this regard are of the most serious nature in light of the significant level of consumer detriment which has arisen from the sales of the products and the impact which this level of consumer detriment has had on the financial services sector.”

The collapse of Keydata in June 2009 prompted a £326m Financial Services Compensation Scheme interim industry levy in 2011.

Between July 2005 and June 2009 over 37,000 investors paid over £475m into Keydata products. The FSCS has since paid out over £330m to Keydata investors.



FSCS ends four-year legal battle against Keydata advisers

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has ended its long-running battle with advisers who sold Keydata products. A consultation paper published by the FCA and PRA on the management expenses levy limit reveals the compensation scheme is dropping legal action over four years since it began. It says: “Costs in this area [financing and major recoveries […]


FCA fines IFA £20k over Keydata advice

The FCA has fined an IFA firm £20,000 over unsuitable advice to invest in Keydata products. The regulator found that clients of John Joseph Financial Services invested a total of £6.1m in Keydata products between August 2005 and June 2006. The FCA says the firm failed to adequately diversify clients’ portfolios and failed to disclose […]

FCA logo new 620x430.jpg

FCA bans and fines ex-Keydata director £350k

The FCA has banned and fined former Keydata finance director Craig McNeil £350,000. Keydata designed and sold investment products to retail investors via IFAs. The products were underpinned by Keydata’s investment in bonds issued by Luxembourg special purpose vehicles, including one called SLS Capital. Following Keydata’s administration in June 2009, its administrators discovered that SLS […]

Managing customers in drawdown

By Lorna Blyth, Investment Marketing Manager Delivering a decent drawdown review process takes time and resources. This article looks at how you can manage drawdown clients in a more cost-effective way. Most advisers are seeing an increase in drawdown clients following pension freedoms. Often these are clients with lower fund sizes, which means advisers are […]

The curious market reaction to Brexit

Written by Mike Riddell29 June 2016 Headlines over the past few days have screamed about record falls in sterling, record low bond yields and massive falls in equity prices. However, if you take a slightly longer view of markets rather than simply the one- or two-day reaction, I think it’s amazing how little markets have […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. When the poor and desperate are convicted of shoplifting, are their sentences waived owing to “severe financial hardship”?

  2. What about the financial hardship suffered by the victims of Keydata?.

    Quite staggering.

  3. do the fca add the £200,000 fine on to the rest of the industry and increase our fees???

  4. Some of the issues around or rather behind the more obvious headlines of what happened at Keydata have yet to be picked up on – not least how what happened was able to happen.

    The root cause of what happened is to be found at the top – an exceptionally lacking corporate structure and corporate / boardroom governance framework.

    I have little doubt that Mr Johnson was little more than a pawn in events: a poorly paid and rewarded one; one that wielded little if any power whatsoever in the boardroom (in fact he was probably ejected from the boardroom when anything juicy was truly discussed); and that he broadly just did what he was told or feared he had to do if he wanted to keep his job – including what he communicated and/or didn’t communicate to the FSA.

    That doesn’t excuse what he did and didn’t do – it just explains it. Few people have the mettle to stand up, especially if their simple / low’ish pay-grade job would be on the line if they did.

    It’s a shame he didn’t stand up to what was going on – but the scale of the FCA fines indicated the culpability: £200k to what was it? £75m?

    It was an astonishing scandal – that led to the biggest ever claim on the UKs FSCS – effectively perpetrated by no more than 2-3 people, with the cameo role backing support of the likes of Harrison and others, and a failure of anyone to do anything needed in a timely fashion, despite all the glaring issues.

  5. Of course the FCA did nothing wrong in their handling of the whole affair!?

    The only real beneficiaries here, as ever, were the Legal profession.

    As for losers: most consumers got there money back (+ small interest). Paid for by IFAs who in the main never had there voices heard, with individual suitability brushed aside by PI insurers when it came to the FSCS farcical attempt to claw back more money. Of course the increasing annual and interim levies where never enough. I think we should make IFAs pay for the banks dodgy PPI sales practices as well….. oh wait.

    Now the FCA admits IFAs were fed a pack of lies from Keydata in addition to their “unclear and misleading” brochures. Should IFA due diligence really extend to assuming all provider documents are lies? Surely this would be an unreasonable assumption in any court of law?

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm