FINAL NOTICE

1.
ACTION

1.1
For the reasons given in this notice, the Authority hereby makes an order,
pursuant to section 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “Act”),
prohibiting Mark Kelly from performing any function in relation to any regulated
activities carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt
professional firm. This order takes effect from 1 March 2016.

2.
SUMMARY OF REASONS

2.1
During the period from 20 August 2008 to 1 July 2010 (the “relevant period”), Mr
Kelly traded under the name PCD Wealth and Pensions Management (“PCD”).

2.2
During the relevant period, Mr Kelly demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity
such that he fails to meet the minimum regulatory standards of the Authority in
that he:

a) invested customers’ pension funds in Portfolio Bonds, UCIS and other

investments without customers’ knowledge or consent by a process designed
to prevent customers from discovering that their funds had been so invested;

b) invested customers’ pension funds without any regard to the suitability of the
investments for the customers;

c)
concealed information about fees and charges from customers;

d) without customers’ knowledge, received monies paid to him by product
providers directly out of customers’ investments having arranged with the
relevant providers for this to be paid directly to a bank account in his name
and under his control; and

e)
falsely certified (and permitted to be falsely certified in his name) copies of
customers’ passports as showing true likenesses of the customers without
ever having met those customers.

2.3
Mr Kelly’s failings were particularly serious for the following reasons:

a) PCD potentially put many customers’ pensions at risk. PCD arranged for
advice to be given to over 350 customers in the UK and invested over
£23,943,000 of those customers’ money (an average investment of over
£68,000 per customer) in the relevant period;

b) two Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes (“UCIS”) in which Mr Kelly
invested customers’ funds have suspended redemptions from the relevant
funds. As a result, customers cannot access the portion of their pension funds
invested in these UCIS until the suspension is lifted, so in certain cases they
cannot use these funds to support themselves in retirement. The proportion
of customers’ funds invested in these two UCIS was considerable, typically
over 45% in the cases the Authority has reviewed. The Authority reviewed
one case in which Mr Kelly initially invested the customer’s entire pension
fund in UCIS (then sold half the holding six months later and reinvested it in
a structured product, again without informing the customer or obtaining their
consent);

c)
as set out in further detail below customers were not given a choice in
relation to whether certain fees would be deducted from their pension funds.
The impact of these fees on the customers’ pension funds has been
considerable. For example, in the ten month period between December 2009
and October 2010, one customer who started with pension funds of £101,125
paid fees of £4,217.30 to PCD and incurred fees of £2,788.77 to other
parties, resulting in a reduction of capital of £7,006.07 (6.9% of the original
fund) during this period alone; and

d) some of the customers who provided witness statements to the Authority
have also referred to the wider impact to their physical and emotional health
caused by the situation in which they find themselves, with respect to their
pension provision, in part as a result of the dishonesty of Mr Kelly.

2.4
Mr Kelly’s failings and actions were designed to enable him to profit at the
expense of consumers. They were calculated, prolonged and dishonest and he
would have been aware of the clear risk that consumers would suffer a loss that
their age would prevent them from recovering. Mr Kelly’s failings are very serious
and a prohibition order is essential in order to protect consumers.

3

2.5
The Authority therefore makes an order, pursuant to section 56 of the Act,
prohibiting Mr Kelly from performing any function in relation to any regulated
activities carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt
professional firm. This order takes effect from 1 March 2016.

2.6
The Authority considers that this action is necessary and proportionate and that it
supports the Authority’s operational objective of securing an appropriate degree
of protection for consumers.

2.7
The Authority has reviewed the cases of eight of Mr Kelly/PCD’s customers and
obtained witness statements from these customers. Save where not expressly
stated, or if the context requires otherwise, references below to the cases
reviewed by the Authority, or to witness statements, are to those eight
customers.

3.
DEFINITIONS

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

“the Authority” means the body corporate previously known as the Financial
Services Authority and renamed on 1 April 2013 as the Financial Conduct
Authority

“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide

“IFA” means Independent Financial Adviser

“PCD” means PCD Wealth and Pension Management

“Pension Switching” and “Pension Transfer” mean respectively switching from a
one pension scheme to another and transferring from an occupational pension
scheme to a personal pension scheme

“Portfolio Bond” means the unit-linked whole of life insurance policy which sat as
an investment product within customers’ SIPPs

“Portfolio Bond Provider” means the firm which provided the Portfolio Bonds into
which PCD chose to invest customers’ funds

“relevant period” means 20 August 2008 to 1 July 2010

“SIPP” means self-invested personal pension scheme

“SIPP Provider” means the firm which provided the SIPPs which PCD
recommended to its customers

“UCIS” means unregulated collective investment scheme

4.
FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

4.1.
During the relevant period, Mr Kelly traded as PCD. PCD was not a separate legal
entity from Mr Kelly, but merely a name under which Mr Kelly traded in the UK.

Overview of PCD’s sales and investment process

4.2.
During the relevant period, PCD arranged for advice to be given to over 350
customers in the UK on pension switches and pension transfers and invested over
£23,943,000 of those customers’ funds (an average investment of over £68,000
per customer).

4.3.
For example, Mr Gray (a PCD adviser), provided such advice in a number of these
cases. Mr Gray and PCD/Mr Kelly’s sales and investment process typically worked
as follows:

a)
Mr Gray contacted a prospective customer on an unsolicited basis and
arranged a meeting with the customer with a view to discussing their
pension arrangements;

b)
At the meeting, Mr Gray discussed with the customer the benefits of
switching/transferring their pension into a SIPP;

c)
Mr Gray also collected customer identification documents (including copies of
passports) from the customer and submitted them to PCD;

d)
Mr Gray provided the customer with a document entitled Pension Report. In
the pension reports reviewed by the Authority, the recommendation was
invariably to switch/transfer their existing pension(s) into a SIPP;

e)
Mr Gray completed certain sections of a SIPP application form with the
customer and had the customer sign the partially completed form. Some
sections, notably the section specifying the amount of fees payable to PCD
from the customer’s funds, were left blank by Mr Gray but were signed by
the customer. Partially completed forms were then sent to PCD;

f)
Mr Gray told the customer when he presented the pension report to them
that a further meeting would take place at a future date at which
recommendations would be made about investing the funds within the SIPP.
The further meeting to discuss investments did not however take place or, if
it did, it did not lead to the customer agreeing to invest the funds within the
SIPP;

g)
The remaining sections of the SIPP application form (including the section
specifying fees payable to PCD from the customer’s funds) were completed
by or on behalf of Mr Kelly without further reference to the customer;

h)
Mr Kelly submitted the SIPP application form and customer identification
documentation to the SIPP provider. Sections of the application form (either
as a separate form or as part of the SIPP application form) were completed
by Mr Kelly (or on Mr Kelly’s behalf) to allow a bank account to be opened to
hold the customer’s funds which had been transferred into their SIPP. As
part of the bank account application, it was arranged for correspondence
relating to the customer’s SIPP bank account to be sent to PCD rather than
directly to the customer;

i)
Mr Kelly completed and signed parts of an application form for a Portfolio
Bond in the customer’s name. The Portfolio Bond application form did not

require the customer’s signature and Mr Kelly did not inform the customer
that the application was being made;

j)
As part of the application, Mr Kelly completed a form identifying himself as
the customer’s investment adviser. This form enabled Mr Kelly to give
investment instructions on the customer’s behalf without the customer’s
knowledge or consent, and enabled PCD to earn an annual fee. The
customer did not have sight of this form;

k)
Mr Kelly then completed and submitted dealing instructions to invest the
monies held in the customer’s Portfolio Bond in underlying investments,
including UCIS. The dealing instructions did not require the customer’s
signature and Mr Kelly did not inform the customer that the investments
were being made; and

l)
Customers found out at a later date that their money had been used to buy
the Portfolio Bond and underlying investment products including UCIS
without their knowledge or consent, and that fees had been deducted from
their funds.

4.4.
Further details of Mr Kelly’s role in PCD’s sales and investment process are set
out below.

Completion of SIPP application forms

4.5.
Seven of the eight customers who provided witness statements to the Authority
applied for a particular SIPP product using the same SIPP application form. These
customers reported being asked to sign some sections of the SIPP application
forms, notably the sections identifying the adviser and specifying the amount of
fees payable to PCD from the customers’ funds, before they had been completed.

4.6.
The remaining sections of the SIPP application form were completed without
further reference to the customer. These sections included the name of the
customer’s financial adviser (which was stated to be “Mr Kelly” in all the cases
reviewed by the Authority), confirmation that the customer had received advice
about the transaction from their adviser, and confirmation that the sale had been
transacted on a face-to-face basis. In fact, Mr Kelly had not attended any
meetings with customers or personally provided them with any advice on the
transaction. The Authority considers that the information in the forms was
intended to mislead the SIPP provider as to who was advising the customer face-
to-face.

4.7.
In the seven cases reviewed by the Authority, the Authority has concluded that
Mr Kelly either completed and signed this page himself or it was signed and
completed in Mr Kelly’s name with his knowledge and on his behalf.

4.8.
The relevant page of the SIPP application form also contained the question: “Is
the adviser to receive remuneration by deduction from the fund?” and a box for
the adviser to answer “yes” or “no”. In the seven cases reviewed by the
Authority, the “yes” box was ticked. A figure of 4% of the fund was filled in as the
initial payment to PCD, plus a figure of 0.5% of the fund as renewal commission.

4.9.
The adviser appointed by Mr Kelly/PCD, Mr Gray, told the Authority in interview
that the SIPP application forms which came to him from Mr Kelly were “pre-
populated” before he saw the customers, implying that customers (and Mr Gray)

would have been able to see the 4% fee payable to PCD from the customers’
funds. However, in a conversation between Mr Gray and a customer which the
customer secretly recorded, Mr Gray told the customer that the fees section of
the application form was completed after the customer had signed it. On the basis
of Mr Gray’s admission to the customer, and the evidence from the four
customers advised by Mr Gray (who provided witness statements to the Authority
and used the relevant forms), who contradicted the suggestion that the forms
were pre-populated with fees information, the Authority considers that the section
of the forms relating to fees was in fact completed subsequently.

4.10. The Authority considers that the motive for inserting the level of fees payable to
PCD from the customer’s funds after the customer had signed the form was to
conceal PCD’s fees from the customer. By adding this information to the forms
himself, or permitting another person to do so on his behalf, Mr Kelly deliberately
concealed from the customer the fees payable to PCD from the customer’s funds.

Bank account application forms

4.11. In addition to, or as part of the SIPP application form, PCD also completed
sections of a bank account application form to enable the customer to open a
bank account to hold the funds transferred into their SIPP.

4.12. A section on the application form named “IFA CONFIRMATION” named Mr Kelly as
the customer’s IFA and contained a signature purporting to be his.

4.13. As part of the bank account application, PCD arranged for correspondence
relating to the customer’s SIPP bank account to be sent to PCD rather than
directly to the customer. The address given for bank statements was Suite 169
Courthill House, Cheshire, a business address used by Mr Kelly, and the contact
email address began: “mkelly@pcd...”.

4.14. This meant that customers did not receive copies of their bank statements
directly. They were dependent on Mr Kelly to forward these statements to them.
In the eight cases reviewed by the Authority the statements were not forwarded
to the customers.

4.15. The bank statements demonstrated the receipt of funds from the customer’s
previous pension provider, the payment of fees to the SIPP Provider and to PCD,
and the transfer of funds to the Portfolio Bond provider. Had Mr Kelly arranged for
bank statements to be sent to the customer, or forwarded them to the customer,
the customer would have been able to identify these transactions at the time and
might have been able to take action to prevent the subsequent investment of
their funds without their knowledge.

4.16. The Authority has concluded that Mr Kelly deliberately failed to provide customers
with bank statements, or any information, relating to their SIPP bank accounts in
order to hide the deduction of fees and the transfer of funds to the Portfolio Bond
Provider from customers.

Falsely certifying copies of passports

4.17. As part of the SIPP application process, customers provided copies of their
passports which were certified by PCD as true copies of the originals. The
Authority reviewed seven cases where the following handwritten statement was
present on the passport copies:

7

“I hereby certify that this is a true copy of the original document and that
the picture is a true likeness of the document holder”.

4.18. In each case, this statement was accompanied by a signature purporting to be Mr
Kelly’s, together with the date and Mr Kelly’s name, title and address in Cyprus.
The Authority has concluded that in all cases the statement was signed by or on
behalf of Mr Kelly.

4.19. In fact, Mr Kelly had not met any of these customers and was not in a position to
say whether the pictures were a true likeness or not. Mr Kelly knew that the
certificates would be provided to the SIPP Provider.

4.20. The Authority has concluded that Mr Kelly completed and signed the certificates
or permitted another person to do so in his name in order to mislead the SIPP
Provider as to whether Mr Kelly had seen the customers when he certified the
copies of the passports for the purpose of money laundering checks.

Investment of customers’ funds without their knowledge or consent

4.21. The customers from whom the Authority obtained statements told the Authority
that they had discovered after the event that the funds in their SIPP had been
used to purchase a Portfolio Bond, and then invested in other products including
UCIS, without their knowledge or consent.

4.22. Mr Kelly completed and signed parts of a Portfolio Bond application form for all
eight of the customers who provided witness statements to the Authority,
including a section specifying the level of fees to be earned by PCD.

4.23. The Portfolio Bond application form did not require the customer’s signature and
Mr Kelly did not inform customers that he was applying to purchase the Portfolio
Bond on their behalf.

4.24. As part of the Portfolio Bond application, Mr Kelly completed an Investment
Adviser Appointment Form. In all cases, Mr Kelly identified himself as the
customer’s investment adviser. This form enabled Mr Kelly to submit investment
instructions on behalf of the customer and enabled PCD to be paid a fee of 1%
per annum of the customer’s funds invested in the Portfolio Bond. This fee was
deducted directly from the customer’s pension funds.

4.25. Mr Kelly then sent dealing instructions to the Portfolio Bond Provider instructing it
to invest the customer’s funds in other products, including UCIS. In all eight
cases, Mr Kelly completed and signed the dealing instructions giving the email
address “mkelly@pcd...” as the point of contact. Once again Mr Kelly did not
inform the customers that he was making these investments on their behalf. In
one particular case, Mr Kelly submitted dealing instructions to the Portfolio Bond
Provider without any knowledge of the recommendations which were made to the
relevant customer eight days later by the adviser that he had appointed, namely
Mr Gray.

4.26. The Authority has therefore concluded that Mr Kelly intentionally and
systematically invested customers’ funds in the Portfolio Bond and underlying
investments, including UCIS, without customers’ consent, by a process he had
established which enabled him to conceal from customers the fact that the
investments were being made.

Unsuitable investments

4.27. Mr Kelly’s misconduct in investing customers’ funds without their consent was
exacerbated by the fact that he invested large proportions of customers’ pension
monies without any regard to the suitability of the investment for the individual
customers. In the cases of the eight customers reviewed by the Authority, Mr
Kelly invested their funds in UCIS which were high-risk, long term and/or illiquid.
Mr Kelly should have known that UCIS were unsuitable for PCD’s customers many
of whom were nearing, or post, retirement.

4.28. The Authority has therefore concluded that Mr Kelly selected investments without
any regard for their suitability for customers.

Failure to provide information to customers regarding fees and commission

4.29. PCD received fees and commission in respect of customers’ SIPPs, portfolio bonds
and underlying investments. Customers also had to pay fees to third parties for
administering their investments. Several of these fees, including PCD’s 4% fee for
advising on the SIPP and fees payable to third parties, were deducted directly
from customers’ pension funds. PCD also received commission from third parties
who provided the products in which Mr Kelly invested customers’ funds.

4.30. Mr Kelly failed to inform customers of the fees they would be charged from their
funds as a result of investing in the SIPP, Portfolio Bond and underlying
investments. Statements were sent direct to Mr Kelly in order to conceal the level
of fees from customers. All the customers who provided statements to the
Authority stated that they had not become aware of these fees until the fact that
they had been charged became evident from their SIPP bank account statements
and Portfolio Bond valuations which they generally did not receive until May 2010,
typically months after the investments had been made.

4.31. The account into which PCD’s fees and commission were paid was in part
administered upon instructions received from Mr Kelly. For example, he gave
instructions that certain payments be made to himself and a family member.

4.32. The total commission paid to PCD for business undertaken during the relevant
period was approximately £3.1 million. Of this amount, the total sum which Mr
Kelly arranged to be paid to himself and a member of his family was
£1,040,912.64.

4.33. The Authority has therefore concluded that Mr Kelly intentionally concealed
information about fees and commission from customers and, without customers’
knowledge, received monies paid by product providers directly out of customers’
investments.

Impact on customers

4.34. Mr Kelly’s misconduct has had a very serious impact on customers.

4.35. Two UCIS in which Mr Kelly invested customers’ funds have publicly suspended
redemptions from the relevant funds. As a result, customers cannot access the
portion of their pension funds invested in these UCIS which in the cases reviewed
by the Authority was over 45%. It is not clear when they will be able to do so.
Many of the customers are retired and unable to earn back the sums they cannot
access.

4.36. As set out above customers were not given a choice in relation to whether certain
fees would be deducted from their pension funds. The impact of these fees on the
customers’ pension funds has been considerable. For example, in the ten month
period between December 2009 and October 2010, one customer who started
with pension funds of £101,125 paid fees of £4,217.30 to PCD and incurred fees
of £2,788.77 to other parties, resulting in a reduction of capital of £7,006.07
(6.9% of the original fund) during this period alone.

4.37. Some of the customers who provided witness statements to the Authority have
also referred to the wider impact on their physical and emotional health caused
by the financial situation in which they have found themselves, with respect to
their pension provision, in part as a result of the dishonesty of Mr Kelly.

Warning Notice

4.38. Through the Warning Notice dated 10 December 2015 (the "Warning Notice"), the
Authority gave notice that it proposed to take the action described above and Mr
Kelly was given the opportunity to make representations to the Authority about
that proposed action.

4.39. No representations having been received by the Authority from Mr Kelly within
the time allowed by the Warning Notice, the default procedures in DEPP 2.3.2G of
the Authority’s Decision Procedure and Penalties manual permitted the
allegations/matters described in the Warning Notice to be regarded as undisputed
and, accordingly, permitted the Authority to give a Decision Notice to Mr Kelly.

Decision Notice

4.40. Through the Decision Notice dated 12 January 2016 (the “Decision Notice”), the
Authority gave Mr Kelly notice that it had decided to take the action described
above.

4.41. Mr Kelly had 28 days from the date the Decision Notice was given to refer the
matter to the Upper Tribunal. No referral was made to the Upper Tribunal.

5.
FAILINGS

5.1.
The regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are referred to in the Annex
to this Notice.

5.2.
By reason of the facts and matters set out in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.37 above, the
Authority considers that during the relevant period, Mr Kelly demonstrated a lack
of honesty and integrity such that he fails to meet the minimum regulatory
standards of the Authority in that:

a)
he invested customers’ pension funds in Portfolio Bonds, UCIS and other
investments without customers’ knowledge or consent by a process
designed to prevent customers from discovering that their funds had been
so invested;

b)
he invested customers’ pension funds without any regard to the suitability
of the investments for the customers;

c)
he concealed information about fees and charges from customers;

d)
without customers’ knowledge, he received monies paid to him by product
providers directly out of customers’ investments and arranged with the
product providers for these monies to be paid directly into a bank account
in his name and under his control; and

e)
he falsely certified (and permitted to be falsely certified in his name)
copies of customers’ passports as showing true likenesses of the
customers without having met those customers.

5.3.
Mr Kelly’s conduct fell far short of the minimum regulatory standards of honesty
and integrity expected by the Authority. As a result, the Authority considers that
Mr Kelly is not fit and proper to perform any function in relation to any regulated
activities carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt
professional firm.

6.
SANCTION

6.1.
The Authority considers that, in support of its consumer protection objective, it is
appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances (including the nature and
seriousness of Mr Kelly’s failings and the serious risk which he poses to
consumers) to prohibit Mr Kelly from performing any function in relation to any
regulated activities carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or
exempt professional firm, because he is not a fit and proper person due to a lack
of honesty and integrity. This order takes effect from 1 March 2016.

6.2.
The Authority has had regard to the guidance set out in Chapter 9 of EG in
proposing that Mr Kelly should be prohibited in the terms set out above. The
relevant provisions of EG are set out in the Annex to this Notice.

7.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Decision maker

7.1.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was made
by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

7.2.
This Final Notice is given under, and in accordance with, section 390 of the Act.

7.3.
Sections 391(4), 391(6) and 391(7) of the Act apply to the publication of
information about the matter to which this notice relates. Under those provisions,
the Authority must publish such information about the matter to which this 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 Kelly or prejudicial to the interests of consumers or
detrimental to the stability of the UK financial system.

7.4.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this
Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

Authority contacts

7.5.
For more information concerning this matter generally, Mr Kelly should contact
Matthew Hendin (direct line: 020 7066 0236) of the Enforcement and Market
Oversight Division of the Authority.

Rebecca Irving
Project Sponsor
Financial Conduct Authority, Enforcement and Market Oversight Division

1.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The FCA’s General Duties

1.1.
The Authority’s operational objectives, set out in section 1B(3) of the Act, include
the consumer protection objective.

1.2.
Section 56 of the Act provides that the Authority may make an order prohibiting
an individual from performing a specified function or any function falling within a
specified description of any function, if it appears to the Authority that that
individual is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a
regulated activity carried on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt
professional firm (to whom, as a result of Part 20 of the Act, the general
prohibition does not apply in relation to that activity). Such an order may relate
to a specified regulated activity, any regulated activity falling within a specified
description, or all regulated actives.

2.
RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

The Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons

2.1.
The part of the Authority’s Handbook entitled The Fit and Proper Test for
Approved Persons” (“FIT”) sets out the criteria that the Authority will consider
when assessing the fitness and propriety of a candidate for a controlled function.
FIT is also relevant in assessing the fitness and propriety of a person who is not
approved.

2.2.
FIT 1.3.1G states that the Authority will have regard to a number of factors when
assessing a person’s fitness and propriety. The most important considerations will
be the person’s honesty, integrity and reputation, competence and capability, and
his financial soundness.

2.3.
FIT 2.1.3G and 2.2.1G state that in determining a person’s honesty, integrity,
reputation, competence and capability the Authority will have regard to all
relevant matters.

The Authority’s policy for exercising its power to make a prohibition
order

2.4.
The Authority’s policy in relation to prohibition orders is set out in Chapter 9 of
EG.

2.5.
EG 9.1 states that the Authority may exercise this power where it considers that,
to achieve any of its regulatory objectives, it is appropriate either to prevent an
individual from performing any functions in relation to regulated activities or to
restrict the functions which he may perform.

2.6.
EG 9.4 sets out the general scope of the Authority’s powers in respect of
prohibition orders, which include the power to make a range of prohibition orders
depending on the circumstances of each case and the range of regulated activities
to which the individual’s lack of fitness and propriety is relevant. EG 9.5 provides

that the scope of a prohibition order will depend on the range of functions that
the individual performs in relation to regulated activities, the reasons why he is
not fit and proper, and the severity of risk which he poses to consumers or the
market generally.

2.7.
EG 9.17 to 9.18 provides guidance on the Authority’s exercise of its power to
make a prohibition order against an individual who is not an approved person.
The Authority will consider the severity of the risk posed by the individual and
may prohibit the individual where it considers this is appropriate to achieve one or
more of its regulatory objectives. When considering whether to exercise its power
to make a prohibition order against such an individual, the Authority will consider
all the relevant circumstances of the case, which may include but are not limited
to the factors set out in EG 9.9.

2.8.
EG 9.9 provides that when deciding whether to make a prohibition order the
Authority will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case, which may
include (but are not limited to):

(1)
whether the individual is fit and proper to perform functions in relation to
regulated activities. The criteria for assessing the fitness and propriety are
set out in FIT 2.1 (Honesty, integrity and reputation), FIT 2.2
(Competence and capability) and FIT 2.3 (Financial soundness);

(2)
the relevance and materiality of any matters indicating a lack of fitness
and propriety;

(3)
the length of time since the occurrence of any matters indicating lack of
fitness and propriety; and

(4)
the severity of the risk which the individual poses to consumers and to
confidence in the financial system.

2.9.
EG 9.12 provides examples of types of behaviour which have previously resulted
in the Authority deciding to issue a prohibition order or withdraw the approval of
an approved person. The examples include providing false or misleading
information to the Authority and severe acts of dishonesty, for example, which
may have resulted in financial crime.