Final Notice
On , the Financial Conduct Authority issued a Final Notice to Luke Williams
FINAL NOTICE
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 Williams 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 Williams the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Williams of
the Authority’s decision to take the action specified above.
3. Mr Williams 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 Williams. The prohibition order takes effect from the date of
this Final Notice.
SUMMARY OF REASONS
5. Mr Williams, whilst employed by a bank in a position of trust dealing with customer
telephone calls, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false
representation which took place between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.
6. On 10 February 2020, at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Williams pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. The conspiracy
involved no fewer than 122 separate victims and losses to the bank (Mr Williams’
employer) totalling £1,202,161.
7. On 17 May 2021, Mr Williams was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment and
ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy. On 27 May 2022, he was
also made subject to a £1 confiscation order and further ordered to pay a victim
surcharge of £170.
1
8. On the basis of the facts and matters set out below, it appears to the Authority that
Mr Williams is not a fit and proper person to perform any function 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, the severity
of the risk posed by Mr Williams to consumers and financial institutions, and to
confidence in the market generally. The Authority considers that it is appropriate
to impose the prohibition order described in paragraph 1 to advance its consumer
protection and integrity objectives (sections 1C and 1D of the Act, respectively).
DEFINITIONS
9. 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;
“the Decision Notice” means the notice of decision given to Mr Williams 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);
“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber); and
“Mr Williams” means Luke Williams.
FACTS AND MATTERS
10. Whilst employed in a position of trust by the bank, Mr Williams participated in a
criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation which took place
between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.
11. The criminal conspiracy involved no fewer than 122 victims, who were customers
of the bank.
12. 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.
13. On 19 October 2017, Mr Williams was arrested at his home address for his part in
the criminal conspiracy.
14. On 10 February 2020, Mr Williams was convicted, upon his own confession, of one
count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation between 1 August 2017
and 30 October 2017.
15. On 17 May 2021, Mr Williams was sentenced to 44 months imprisonment and on
27 May 2022 was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £170. In addition, he was
ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy and made subject to a £1
confiscation order.
16. Upon sentencing the Judge made the following observations;
i.
Mr Williams was employed by a bank in a position of trust at the material
time of the conspiracy;
ii.
Between 1 January 2017 and 12 October 2017 money was stolen from 122
accounts of the bank’s customers, each of whom had telephoned a 24- hour
online banking service. Each call was answered by Mr Williams, allowing him
to identify the relevant security information which he provided to his co-
conspirators. This enabled his co-conspirators, to telephone the bank,
impersonate those customers and arrange unauthorised payments from
those accounts to numerous third-party bank accounts.
iii.
Regarding the role played by Mr Williams the Judge stated, “Plainly your
role, Luke Williams, was a leading one and you have to take responsibility
for the overall loss.”
LACK OF FITNESS AND PROPRIETY
17. The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in
the Annex.
18. FIT 1.3.1G states that the Authority will have regard to a number of factors when
assessing an individual’s fitness and propriety.
19. 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.
20. The facts and serious nature of Mr Williams’ offences show he lacks honesty and
integrity. In particular;
i.
Mr Williams has been convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit fraud,
an offence of dishonesty for which a 44 month term of imprisonment was
deemed the appropriate sentence.
ii.
Mr Williams abused a position of trust within the bank and played a leading
role in that conspiracy which exploited the bank, that was his employer, and
customers of the bank.
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 Williams is not fit and proper to
perform functions in relation to regulated activity. Mr Williams abused a position of
trust within a bank to exploit consumers, and the bank itself, and would therefore
present a material risk to consumers if employed in a regulated function within
financial services.
23. The Authority therefore considers it appropriate to prohibit Mr Williams 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 Williams 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 Williams 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 Williams 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
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).
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 Williams 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 Williams the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Williams of
the Authority’s decision to take the action specified above.
3. Mr Williams 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 Williams. The prohibition order takes effect from the date of
this Final Notice.
SUMMARY OF REASONS
5. Mr Williams, whilst employed by a bank in a position of trust dealing with customer
telephone calls, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false
representation which took place between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.
6. On 10 February 2020, at Southwark Crown Court, Mr Williams pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. The conspiracy
involved no fewer than 122 separate victims and losses to the bank (Mr Williams’
employer) totalling £1,202,161.
7. On 17 May 2021, Mr Williams was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment and
ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy. On 27 May 2022, he was
also made subject to a £1 confiscation order and further ordered to pay a victim
surcharge of £170.
1
8. On the basis of the facts and matters set out below, it appears to the Authority that
Mr Williams is not a fit and proper person to perform any function 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, the severity
of the risk posed by Mr Williams to consumers and financial institutions, and to
confidence in the market generally. The Authority considers that it is appropriate
to impose the prohibition order described in paragraph 1 to advance its consumer
protection and integrity objectives (sections 1C and 1D of the Act, respectively).
DEFINITIONS
9. 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;
“the Decision Notice” means the notice of decision given to Mr Williams 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);
“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber); and
“Mr Williams” means Luke Williams.
FACTS AND MATTERS
10. Whilst employed in a position of trust by the bank, Mr Williams participated in a
criminal conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation which took place
between 1 January 2017 and 30 October 2017.
11. The criminal conspiracy involved no fewer than 122 victims, who were customers
of the bank.
12. 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.
13. On 19 October 2017, Mr Williams was arrested at his home address for his part in
the criminal conspiracy.
14. On 10 February 2020, Mr Williams was convicted, upon his own confession, of one
count of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation between 1 August 2017
and 30 October 2017.
15. On 17 May 2021, Mr Williams was sentenced to 44 months imprisonment and on
27 May 2022 was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £170. In addition, he was
ordered to forfeit phones connected with the conspiracy and made subject to a £1
confiscation order.
16. Upon sentencing the Judge made the following observations;
i.
Mr Williams was employed by a bank in a position of trust at the material
time of the conspiracy;
ii.
Between 1 January 2017 and 12 October 2017 money was stolen from 122
accounts of the bank’s customers, each of whom had telephoned a 24- hour
online banking service. Each call was answered by Mr Williams, allowing him
to identify the relevant security information which he provided to his co-
conspirators. This enabled his co-conspirators, to telephone the bank,
impersonate those customers and arrange unauthorised payments from
those accounts to numerous third-party bank accounts.
iii.
Regarding the role played by Mr Williams the Judge stated, “Plainly your
role, Luke Williams, was a leading one and you have to take responsibility
for the overall loss.”
LACK OF FITNESS AND PROPRIETY
17. The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in
the Annex.
18. FIT 1.3.1G states that the Authority will have regard to a number of factors when
assessing an individual’s fitness and propriety.
19. 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.
20. The facts and serious nature of Mr Williams’ offences show he lacks honesty and
integrity. In particular;
i.
Mr Williams has been convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit fraud,
an offence of dishonesty for which a 44 month term of imprisonment was
deemed the appropriate sentence.
ii.
Mr Williams abused a position of trust within the bank and played a leading
role in that conspiracy which exploited the bank, that was his employer, and
customers of the bank.
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 Williams is not fit and proper to
perform functions in relation to regulated activity. Mr Williams abused a position of
trust within a bank to exploit consumers, and the bank itself, and would therefore
present a material risk to consumers if employed in a regulated function within
financial services.
23. The Authority therefore considers it appropriate to prohibit Mr Williams 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 Williams 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 Williams 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 Williams 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
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).