CLOSE SEARCH
Our client was a well-established financial services business operating across multiple jurisdictions, with a significant client base and a strong reputation built over many years in the industry. The business employed a substantial number of staff across various departments, including compliance, trading, and client relationship management.
Our client received formal notification that they were the subject of a multi-agency investigation involving the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the National Crime Agency (NCA), and His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The investigation encompassed a broad range of serious allegations including suspected money laundering contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), fraudulent trading, suspected insider trading in breach of the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and wider concerns regarding the adequacy of the firm's Anti-Money Laundering (AML) systems and controls.
The investigation had been triggered by a series of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) submitted by a correspondent financial institution, which had flagged a number of transactions as potentially suspicious. Investigators had also received intelligence suggesting that certain individuals within the firm may have had access to material non-public information and had allegedly acted upon it in breach of their regulatory obligations. The firm's nominated officer and two senior members of the compliance team were placed under personal investigation alongside the corporate entity itself.
Investigators exercised their powers under POCA, and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) to obtain production orders requiring the disclosure of extensive financial records, client files, internal communications, and compliance documentation spanning a period of several years. Restraint order proceedings were also initiated, threatening to freeze significant assets of both the business and the individuals under investigation, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the firm's ability to continue trading.
This investigation presented exceptionally complex and serious challenges, not least because of the rigid and demanding regulatory framework within which both our clients and the investigating authorities were operating.
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 creates some of the most far-reaching and draconian powers available to any law enforcement agency in England and Wales. The threshold for obtaining production orders and restraint orders is deliberately low, and the burden placed upon those under investigation to justify the release of restrained assets is considerable. The breadth of the "criminal property" definition under POCA meant that virtually any asset connected to the business was potentially at risk of restraint, creating immediate and severe operational difficulties.
Equally challenging was the overlay of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the FCA's own enforcement powers. The FCA operates an entirely separate enforcement regime from the criminal courts, and our clients faced the prospect of parallel regulatory proceedings running alongside the criminal investigation. The FCA's powers to impose unlimited financial penalties, withdraw authorisations, and ban individuals from working in financial services represented an existential threat to the business entirely independent of any criminal prosecution.
The Market Abuse Regulation presented its own particular difficulties. Insider trading allegations are notoriously complex to defend, given the evidential weight placed upon trading patterns, the timing of transactions relative to material announcements, and the inferences that investigators and prosecutors routinely draw from circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to obtain a civil market abuse finding by the FCA is lower than that required for a criminal conviction, meaning our clients faced a dual-track risk that demanded a carefully coordinated response.
The obligations imposed by the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 added a further layer of complexity. These regulations impose stringent requirements on regulated firms regarding customer due diligence, ongoing monitoring, and the reporting of suspicious activity. Any failure to meet these obligations, whether historic or ongoing, carried the risk of separate regulatory sanction entirely independently of the NCA and FCA investigations.
The personal exposure of the nominated officer and compliance team members raised acutely difficult professional and ethical considerations. The nominated officer occupies a uniquely sensitive position under the POCA regime, carrying personal criminal liability for failures in the firm's SAR reporting obligations. Defending individuals in this position requires an exceptionally nuanced approach, balancing their personal interests against those of the firm whilst ensuring that no conflict of interest arises in the conduct of the defence.
Finally, the multi-agency nature of the investigation created its own procedural complexities. Coordinating engagement across the FCA, NCA, and HMRC, each operating under different statutory frameworks, with different enforcement objectives and different procedural timelines, required careful strategic management to ensure that representations made to one authority did not prejudice our clients' position before another.
We were instructed at the earliest possible stage, before our clients had responded to any of the investigators' requests for information or documentation. This early instruction proved critical to the outcome achieved. After instruction :
Our first priority was to conduct a rapid but thorough internal review of the transactions and conduct under investigation - Working alongside forensic accountants and financial crime compliance specialists, we mapped the precise flow of funds that had given rise to the suspicious activity reports, analysed the trading activity that had attracted the attention of the FCA, and conducted a detailed audit of the firm's AML systems, controls, and compliance documentation. This early internal investigation allowed us to build a comprehensive and accurate picture of our clients' position before any engagement with the authorities, ensuring that all representations made were fully evidenced and robustly defensible.
We moved quickly to challenge the restraint order proceedings - presenting detailed evidence to the court demonstrating that the statutory threshold for restraint had not been met in respect of the majority of the assets targeted and that the continuation of the restraint would cause disproportionate harm to innocent third parties, including employees and creditors of the business. This early and decisive intervention resulted in the partial lifting of the restraint, preserving sufficient operational liquidity to allow the business to continue trading throughout the investigation.
In parallel, we engaged proactively and constructively with the investigating authorities at the earliest opportunity - Rather than adopting a purely defensive posture, we sought to present a detailed and well-evidenced narrative that directly addressed the concerns which had triggered the investigation. We provided the FCA, NCA, and HMRC with comprehensive representations supported by forensic accounting evidence, expert compliance analysis, and detailed transaction tracing, demonstrating that the transactions flagged as suspicious were entirely explicable by reference to legitimate commercial activity and that the firm's AML systems and controls, whilst not perfect, were broadly compliant with the applicable regulatory standards.
Worked on our client’s evidential defence - We worked closely with the nominated officer and compliance team members to prepare careful and comprehensive accounts of their decision-making processes, demonstrating that all relevant obligations under POCA and the Money Laundering Regulations had been properly considered and discharged. In relation to the insider trading allegations, we instructed an independent market expert whose analysis of the trading patterns under scrutiny provided compelling evidence that the timing of the relevant transactions was entirely consistent with publicly available information and legitimate investment strategy, rather than the misuse of material non-public information alleged by investigators.
Throughout the investigation, we maintained a consistent and transparent dialogue with all three investigating authorities, responding promptly and fully to all requests for information whilst carefully protecting our clients' legal professional privilege and ensuring that no unnecessary admissions were made. This approach, combining full cooperation with robust evidential challenge, demonstrated our clients' good faith whilst simultaneously undermining the evidential foundations of the investigation.
As a direct result of our early intervention and proactive engagement strategy :
All three investigating authorities confirmed that no further action would be taken against either the corporate entity or any of the individuals under investigation - The NCA confirmed that it was satisfied that the transactions under scrutiny did not involve criminal property within the meaning of POCA. The FCA closed its market abuse enquiry following receipt of our expert trading analysis and confirmed that no regulatory proceedings would be commenced against the firm or any of its employees. HMRC similarly confirmed the closure of its investigation following our detailed representations regarding the firm's tax compliance position.
The restraint proceedings were fully discharged, and all assets were released without condition - . No financial penalties were imposed by any authority, no authorisations were withdrawn, and none of the individuals under investigation received any form of regulatory censure or prohibition. The business continued to operate without interruption and retained its full regulatory permissions throughout.
Critically, because the matter was resolved at the investigation stage without any formal charges or regulatory findings, the firm suffered no public adverse publicity and its reputation in the market remained entirely intact. The business subsequently implemented a series of enhanced compliance measures developed with our guidance, significantly strengthening its AML framework and internal governance structures for the future.
This case powerfully illustrates the decisive value of early specialist legal intervention at the investigation stage of financial crime matters. By engaging proactively with multiple regulatory and law enforcement authorities, challenging disproportionate enforcement measures, and presenting a compelling evidential case before any decision to charge or prosecute was made, we protected our clients completely and preserved both their business and their personal and professional reputations.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
