FINAL NOTICE

To:

LYNDEN GERARD SCOURFIELD

ACTION

1.
For the reasons set out in this Final Notice, the Authority hereby takes the
following action against Mr Scourfield.

2.
The Authority gave Mr Scourfield the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Scourfield
that, for the reasons given below and pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the
Authority had decided to make an order prohibiting Mr Scourfield from performing
any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised
person, exempt person or exempt professional firm.

3.
Mr Scourfield 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, for the reasons set out below, the Authority hereby makes an order
pursuant to section 56 of the Act prohibiting Mr Scourfield from performing any
function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised person,

exempt person or exempt professional firm. The Prohibition Order takes effect
from 20 June 2019.

DEFINITIONS

5.
The definitions below are used in this Final 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 Decision Notice given to Mr Scourfield dated 17
April 2019;

“EG” means the Enforcement Guide;

“FIT” means the Fit and Proper Test for Employees and Senior Personnel
sourcebook;

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

“the Prohibition Order” means the order prohibiting Mr Scourfield, pursuant to
section 56 of the Act, from performing any function in relation to any regulated
activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt
professional firm;

“Mr Scourfield” means Lynden Gerard Scourfield;

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

“the Warning Notice” means the Warning Notice given to Mr Scourfield dated 3
January 2019.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

6.
The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in
the Annex.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

7.
The Authority has concluded, on the basis of the facts and matters and
conclusions described in the Warning Notice, and in the Decision Notice, that Mr
Scourfield 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, as his conducted has demonstrated a serious lack of honesty
and integrity. Specifically, Mr Scourfield was convicted, upon his own confession,
on 12 August 2016, of 1 count of conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to section 1 of
the Criminal Law Act 1977 and 4 counts of fraudulent trading, contrary to section
458 of the Companies Act 1985.

8.
On 2 February 2017, Mr Scourfield was sentenced to a total term of 11 years and
3 months’ imprisonment and he was disqualified under section 2 of the Company
Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for 9 years.

FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

9.
Mr Scourfield has never been approved by the Authority to perform any controlled
functions in relation to any firm authorised by the Authority.

10.
On 12 August 2016, Mr Scourfield was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of 1
count of conspiracy to corrupt, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977
and 4 counts of fraudulent trading, contrary to section 458 of the Companies Act
1985.

11.
On 2 February 2017, Mr Scourfield was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to a
total of 11 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for these offences. Mr Scourfield
was also disqualified as a director for 9 years under section 2 of the Company
Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

12.
Mr Scourfield’s offences were committed while he was a senior employee of a
bank.

13.
In his sentencing remarks (made on 2 February 2017), the Judge commented on
the seriousness of Mr Scourfield’s conduct, stating that Mr Scourfield abused his
power and trust as a senior manager at the bank by “exploiting the obvious
weaknesses in the bank’s systems and the lack of proper supervision to which
[you] should have been subject” and “all over a long period of time”. Mr
Scourfield acted corruptly, being motivated by the realisation of “financial gain”.
The Judge stated that Mr Scourfield had allowed others to take advantage of the
bank and of its corporate customers who were under his “effective control”.

14.
Mr Scourfield’s offences were committed over a prolonged period of time (more
than 4 years) in which he obtained gifts in exchange for referrals of the bank’s
business customers. The Judge noted that it resulted in not only huge losses for
his employer but the “destruction along the way of the livelihoods of a number of
innocent hard-working people”.

DECISION MAKER

15.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was made
by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

IMPORTANT

16.
This Final Notice is given to Mr Scourfield in accordance with section 390(1) of the
Act.

17.
The Authority must publish such information about the matter to which this Final
Notice relates as the Authority considers appropriate. 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 Scourfield or prejudicial to the interests of
consumers.

18.
The Authority intends to publish this Final Notice and such information about the
matter to which this Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

19.
For more information concerning this matter generally, Mr Scourfield should
contact Hema Rachhoya at the Authority (direct line: 020 7066 2770).

Anna Couzens
Enforcement and Market Oversight


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

3.
In exercising its power to make a prohibition order, the Authority must have
regard to guidance published in the Handbook and in regulatory guides, such as
EG. The relevant main considerations in relation to the action specified above are
set out below.

The Enforcement Guide

4.
The Authority’s policy in relation to exercising its power to issue a prohibition
order is set out in EG.

5.
EG 9.1 explains the purpose of prohibition orders in relation to the Authority’s
regulatory objectives.

6.
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.

7.
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.

8.
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

9.
The Authority has issued guidance on the fitness and propriety of individuals in
FIT.

10.
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.

11.
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.”

12.
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).