Top 5 Cases of 2020

As we come to the end of a turbulent 2020, we have been reviewing what Waymark users have been using our platform for, and in the coming days will be letting you know the Top 5 news items, insight articles, and enforcement cases that have generated the most interest.

We have put hundreds of new alerts, case decisions and articles onto our platform during the year - and knowing which ones have been the most popular is a fascinating clue to the concerns of our users who come from financial institutions, law firms, and regulators.

This week we continue with the most accessed cases of 2020.

 *Please note that all links to read insights require a user licence. If you’d like to talk to us about our service, please contact us here.

  1. Tullett Prebon (Europe) Limited

In the second half of 2019, Tullett Prebon (Europe) Limited, was fined a total of £15.4 million for failure to conduct its business with the required level of due diligence. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found the firm not to have mitigated the risks inherent in the business, including claiming for lavish entertainment. The FCA further found the company to have ineffective controls while carrying out its business acting on behalf of its institutional clients transacting within wholesale financial markets. Moreover, the firm also breached Principle 11 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses by being uncooperative in the investigations – an essential part within the FCA’s operations.

Access the full case here.

2. The Prudential Assurance Company Limited

Also in the second half of 2019, the FCA fined The Prudential Assurance Company Limited a lump sum of £23,875,000 for failures related to the non-advised sales of annuities. The firm’s annuity business (non-advised) placed its focus on the selling of annuities directly to existing pension holders of Prudential products. The firm did not take care to ensure the customers were continuously informed about potentially better deals with other firms and did not openly advise their clients of the non-advised products to shop around. The FCA found this to be unreasonable care taken to organise and control its business affairs – thereby being in breach of its responsibility to guarantee the adequate treatment of its customers. Furthermore, the firm failed to ensure that the documentation which call handlers used was appropriate and they neglected to monitor the calls with customers correctly.

Access the full case here.

 

3. Royal & Sun Alliance Life Pensions

A case from 2003 made the top five most popular cases during 2020. Royal & Sun Alliance Life Pensions was found to have mis-sold mortgage endowments and had related deficiencies in its sales systems and its control functions. The firm was fined for theses issues for the period during January 1997 to July 1999. The Financial Services Authority believes that the firm sold up to 20% of its customers incompatible policies during this time.

Access the full case here.

4. Standard Chartered Bank

With a case date of 9th April 2019, Standard Chartered Bank was fined a total of £102,163,200 for breaching the Money Laundering Regulations Act, 2007. The relevant period of the breach was between November 2009 and December 2014 (estimated). Two areas of Standard Chartered’s business were investigated by the FCA – these included the Wholesale Bank Correspondent Banking business arm in the UK and the branches within the United Arab Emirates. Severe shortcomings on AML controls were found, relating to due diligence and ongoing monitoring of customers.

Access the full case here.

 

5. Bank of Scotland plc

During the period between May 2007 and January 2009, Bank of Scotland plc was fined £45.5 million for failure to correctly disclose information relating to suspicious fraudulent activities that may have taken place in its London and South East region. The control breakdown was discovered at the beginning of 2007 by BoS in IAR. The director of IAR in said region had been sanctioning limits and further lending facilities completely beyond the scope of his authority – these actions went undetected for three years, at least. The case date of 21st June 2019, confirmed the additional facilities extended by the director had been offered to businesses in financial distress and furthermore, engaged the use of Quayside Corporate Services Limited (turnaround consultants).

Access the full case here.

 

To speak to us or subscribe to our newsletter please contact us here.

Or message us via the chat icon in the bottom right corner of your screen.

Previous
Previous

Top 5 Roundups of 2020

Next
Next

Why Regulators Must Become Innovators