FINAL NOTICE

FRN:
FXB21371

ACTION

1. For the reasons set out in this Final Notice, the Authority hereby makes an order,
pursuant to section 56 of the Act, prohibiting Mr Buckman from performing any
function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person,
exempt person or exempt professional firm.

2. The Authority gave Mr Buckman the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Buckman of
the Authority’s decision to take the action specified above.

3. Mr Buckman has not referred the matter to the Tribunal within 28 days of the date
on which the Decision Notice was given to him.

4. Accordingly, the Authority hereby makes the prohibition order set out in paragraph
1 above against Mr Buckman. The prohibition order takes effect from the date of
this Final Notice.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

5. Mr Buckman was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false
representation which took place between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.

6. Between 7 November 2019 and 8 December 2019, Mr Buckman held the CF8
Apportionment and Oversight function, and then, the SMF29 Senior Manager
(limited scope) function between 9 December 2019 and 13 October 2021 at a firm
authorised by the Authority. When applying for approval to perform the CF8
function in October 2019, Mr Buckman did not disclose to the Authority, in response
to questions in the application form, that he was under criminal investigation for
his part in this conspiracy.

7. On 5 November 2020, at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Buckman pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. The conspiracy

1

was found to have involved no fewer than 122 separate victims and resulted in a
total loss of £1,202,161 to the bank where the victims were account holders.

8. On 17 May 2021, Mr Buckman was sentenced to a total term of 2 years
imprisonment and ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy. At this
time, Mr Buckman was approved to perform the SMF29 (limited scope) function at
an authorised firm, yet he failed to disclose his conviction and sentence to the
Authority.

9. On the basis of the facts and matters set out below, it appears to the Authority that
Mr Buckman is not a fit and proper person to perform any functions in relation to
any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person, or
exempt professional firm. His conviction demonstrates a clear and serious lack of
honesty and integrity such that he is not fit and proper to perform regulated
activities. In reaching this conclusion, the Authority has had regard to all relevant
circumstances, including the relevance and materiality of the offences, Mr
Buckman’s failure to disclose that he was under criminal investigation when
applying for CF8 approval, his subsequent failure to disclose his conviction and
sentence, and the severity of the risk posed by Mr Buckman to consumers and to
confidence in the UK financial system. The Authority considers that it is appropriate
to impose the prohibition order described in paragraph 1 to advance its consumer
protection integrity objectives (sections 1C and 1D of the Act, respectively).

DEFINITIONS

10. The definitions below are used in this Decision Notice (and in the Annex):

“the Act” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;

“the Authority” means the Financial Conduct Authority;

“Mr Buckman” means Francis Buckman;

“the Decision Notice” means the notice of decision given to Mr Buckman dated 9
July 2024;

“EG” means the Enforcement Guide;

“FIT” means the Authority’s ‘Fit and Proper Test for Employees and Senior
Personnel’, part of the Handbook;

“the Handbook” means the Authority’s Handbook of rules and guidance;

“the RDC” means the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the Authority (see further
under Procedural Matters below); and

“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber); and

FACTS AND MATTERS

11. Mr Buckman was part of a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false
representation which took place between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.

12. The criminal conspiracy involved no fewer than 122 victims, who were customers
of a bank.

13. The potential value of losses from the offending totalled £2,352,666. However, as
not all attempts to defraud customer accounts were successful, the actual loss was
£1,509,936. As the bank was then able to recover £307,774 before the monies
were dissipated, the total final loss resulting from the offending was £1,202,161.

14. On 19 October 2017, Mr Buckman was arrested at his home and a phone belonging
to him which was connected with the conspiracy was seized.

15. On 3 October 2019, Mr Buckman made an application for approval to perform the
CF8 function at an authorised firm. In the application form, Mr Buckman was asked
if he was the subject of any ongoing criminal investigation. Mr Buckman answered
‘No’. He was also asked if he had been ordered to produce documents pursuant to
any ongoing criminal investigation or been the subject of a search pursuant to any
ongoing criminal investigation. He answered ‘No’ to this question.

16. Mr Buckman was subsequently approved by the Authority to perform the CF8, and
then the SMF29 (limited scope) function, at the authorised firm from 7 November
2019 to 8 December 2019 and from 9 December 2019 to 13 October 2021
respectively.

17. On 5 November 2020, Mr Buckman changed his plea to guilty on the basis that he
caused an actual loss of £43,069 and was, consequently, convicted of one count of
conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation.

18. On 17 May 2021, Mr Buckman was sentenced to two years imprisonment. In
addition, he was ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy.

19. Upon sentencing the Judge made the following observations:

i.
Between 1 January 2017 and 12 October 2017, as part of the conspiracy,
money was stolen from no fewer than 122 accounts of the bank’s customers,
each of whom had telephoned a 24-hour online banking service. Each call
was answered by a co-conspirator of Mr Buckman’s, who was an employee
of the bank. This allowed the co-conspirator to identify the relevant security
information which they then provided to the other co-conspirators which
included Mr Buckman. This enabled Mr Buckman to telephone the bank,
impersonate those customers and arrange unauthorised payments from
those accounts to numerous third-party bank accounts.

ii.
That on his arrest on 19 October 2017, the police recovered a small black
Nokia telephone from Mr Buckman’s address, which was linked to the
offending, and which he accepted using between 21 July 2017 and 30
September 2017.

iii.
In relation to the offence the Judge stated, “It is plain Mr Buckman, and (co-
conspirators) that you were known to each other and aware each was
exploiting this lapse in security at the bank. …There was no one above either
of you to whom you were answerable, and your awareness of the scale of
the operation means that your culpability must be assessed at the highest
level.”

20. The conviction and sentencing occurred whilst Mr Buckman was an approved
person. He also failed to disclose either his conviction or sentence to the Authority
as he was required to do as an approved person.

LACK OF FITNESS AND PROPRIETY

21. The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in
the Annex.

22. FIT 1.3.1G states that the Authority will have regard to a number of factors when
assessing an individual’s fitness and propriety.

23. FIT 1.3.1BG(1) states that among the most important considerations when
assessing the fitness and propriety of a person is that person’s honesty, integrity
and reputation.

24. The above facts and matters demonstrate that Mr Buckman has been convicted of
one count of conspiracy to commit fraud, an offence of dishonesty for which a two-
year term of imprisonment was deemed the appropriate sentence. These facts
demonstrate that Mr Buckman lacks honesty and integrity.

21. EG 9.1.1 provides that the power to prohibit an individual will be exercised by the
Authority to achieve its statutory objectives, which include both securing an
appropriate degree of protection for consumers and protecting and enhancing the
integrity of the UK financial system.

22. The facts and matters above demonstrate that Mr Buckman is not fit and proper to
perform functions in relation to regulated activity. Mr Buckman was involved in a
conspiracy to defraud consumers, at a bank, and would therefore present a material
risk to consumers if employed in a regulated function within financial services. In
addition, Mr Buckman failed to disclose to the Authority in his application for
approval that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation or that a
phone had been seized from his address during that criminal investigation. He also
failed to disclose his conviction and sentence to the Authority as he was required
to do as an approved person.

23. The Authority therefore considers it appropriate to prohibit Mr Buckman performing
any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person,
exempt person or exempt professional firm.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

23. This Final Notice is given to Mr Buckman in accordance with section 390(1) of the
Act.

Decision Maker

24. The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was made
by the RDC. The RDC is a committee of the Authority which takes certain decisions
on behalf of the Authority. The members of the RDC are separate to the Authority
staff involved in conducting investigations and recommending action against firms
and individuals. Further information about the RDC can be found on the Authority’s
website:

25. Section 391(4), 391(6) and 391(7) of the Act apply to the publication of information
about the matter to which this Final Notice relates. Under those provisions, the
Authority must publish such information about which this Final Notice relates as
the Authority considers appropriate.

26. The information may be published in such manner as the Authority considers
appropriate. However, the Authority may not publish information if such publication
would, in the opinion of the Authority, be unfair to Mr Buckman or prejudicial to
the interest of consumers or detrimental to the stability of the UK financial system.

27. The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this
Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

28. For more information concerning this matter generally, Mr Buckman should contact
Stuart Doyle at the Authority (direct line: 020 7066 0245).

Jeremy Parkinson
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division

ANNEX

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1. The Authority’s operational objectives include securing an appropriate degree of
protection for consumers (section 1C of the Act) and protecting and enhancing the
integrity of the UK financial system (section 1D of the Act).

2. Section 56(1) of the Act provides:

“The [Authority] may make a prohibition order if it appears to it that an individual
is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a regulated
activity carried on by:

(a)
an authorised person,

(b)
a person who is an exempt person in relation to that activity, or

(c)
a person to whom, as a result of Part 20, the general prohibition does not
apply in relation to that activity.”

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Prohibiting an individual who is not fit and proper

3. The Authority’s policy in relation to exercising its power to issue a prohibition order
is set out in EG.

4. EG 9.1 explains the purpose of prohibition orders in relation to the Authority’s
regulatory objectives.

5. 5. EG 9.2 sets out the Authority’s general policy on making prohibition orders. In
particular—

(a)
EG 9.2.1 states that the Authority will consider all relevant circumstances,
including whether enforcement action has been taken against the individual
by other enforcement agencies, in deciding whether to make a prohibition
order;

(b)
EG 9.2.2 states that the Authority has the power to make a range of
prohibition orders depending on the circumstances of each case; and

(c)
EG 9.2.3 states that the scope of a prohibition order will depend on, among
other things, the reasons why the individual is not fit and proper and the
severity of risk he poses to consumers or the market generally.

6. EG 9.5.1 states that where the Authority is considering whether to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider the severity of the risk posed by the individual and may prohibit him
where it considers that it is appropriate to achieve one or more of the Authority’s
statutory objectives.

7. EG 9.5.2 provides that, when considering whether to exercise its power to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. These may include, but are
not limited to, the factors set out in EG 9.3.2. Those factors include: whether the
individual is fit and proper to perform functions in relation to regulated activities
(noting the criteria set out in FIT 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3); the relevance and materiality

of any matters indicating unfitness; the length of time since the occurrence of any
matters indicating unfitness; and the severity of the risk which the individual poses
to consumers and to confidence in the financial system.

Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel

8. The Authority has issued guidance on the fitness and propriety of individuals in FIT.

9. FIT 1.3.1BG(1) states that the most important considerations when assessing the
fitness and propriety of a person to perform a controlled function include that
person’s honesty, integrity and reputation.

10. FIT 2.1.1G states that in determining a person’s honesty, integrity and reputation,
the Authority will have regard to all relevant matters including, but not limited to,
those set out in FIT 2.1.3G. It notes, amongst other things and by way of example,
that:

“… conviction for a criminal offence will not automatically mean an application will
be rejected. The [Authority] treats each candidate’s application on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the seriousness of, and circumstances surrounding, the
offence, the explanation offered by the convicted person, the relevance of the
offence to the proposed role, the passage of time since the offence was committed
and evidence of the individual’s rehabilitation.”

11. FIT 2.1.3G(1) states that the matters referred to in FIT 2.1.1G include, but are not
limited to, whether a person has been convicted of any criminal offence, noting
that particular consideration will be given to offences including dishonesty, fraud
and financial crime (amongst other things).