FINAL NOTICE

To:
Michele Louise King
To:
HD
Administrators
LLP
(in

liquidation)

IRN:
MLK01025
FRN:
465359


20 June 1973
Address:
The Official Receiver
Public Interest Unit
The Insolvency Service
2nd Floor, 3 Piccadilly Place
London Road
Manchester
M1 3BN


ACTION


1.
For the reasons given in this notice, the FSA hereby:

(a)
censures Ms King publicly for failing to comply with Statement of Principle 6

pursuant to section 66 of the Act;

(b)
withdraws Ms King’s approval to perform the controlled function of CF4 at

HDA, pursuant to section 63 of the Act; and

(c)
prohibits Ms King from performing any controlled function in relation to any

regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or

exempt professional firm, pursuant to section 56 of the Act.

2.
Ms King agreed to settle the matter with the FSA at an early stage in the investigation.

3.
Ms King’s misconduct merits a financial penalty. Were it not for Ms King’s current

financial difficulties and verifiable evidence that the imposition of such a penalty

would result in serious financial hardship, the FSA would have imposed a financial

penalty of £20,000.

4.
The public censure will be issued on 28 November 2012 and will take the form of this

Final Notice, which will be published on the FSA’s website.

5.
The withdrawal of approval and prohibition will take effect from the date of this Final

Notice.

SUMMARY OF REASONS

6.
Ms King was approved to perform the controlled function of CF4 (Partner), a

significant influence function, at HDA from 21 August 2008. During the relevant

period, Ms King breached Statement of Principle 6 by failing to exercise due skill,

care and diligence in managing the business of HDA for which she was responsible in

the performance of her controlled function.

7.
Specifically, Ms King breached Statement of Principle 6 by failing to:

(a)
understand, or take reasonable steps to understand, her regulatory

responsibilities as an approved person. She sought and obtained FSA approval

as CF4 without any comprehension of the specific regulatory responsibilities

attaching to that function; and

(b)
discharge, or take reasonable steps to discharge, her regulatory responsibilities

as an approved person. In particular, she did not:

(i)
understand, or take steps to inform herself of, the nature of the business

conducted by HDA, including the basic function, operation and

management of the pension scheme operated by the firm;

(ii)
understand or take steps to inform herself of HDA’s regulatory

obligations; and

(iii)
involve herself in, or keep herself informed of, management decisions

at HDA and the day-to-day operation of the firm.

8.
In committing this misconduct, Ms King has demonstrated that she is not a fit and

proper person to perform controlled functions in relation to regulated activities carried

out by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm. She does not

meet the minimum regulatory standards in terms of competence and capability

necessary for remaining an approved person.

9.
Individuals with approval to perform controlled functions, and in particular those

involving the exercise of significant influence, must ensure that they understand their

regulatory obligations in order to be able to adequately discharge them and thereby

ensure the safe and compliant operation of the firm for which they are responsible.

This is necessary to safeguard the interests of consumers and the market generally. Ms

King failed to take any steps to understand her responsibilities as CF4 and, as a result,

could not adequately discharge her regulatory obligations as an approved person.

10.
This action supports the FSA’s regulatory objectives of securing the appropriate

degree of protection for consumers and maintaining confidence in the financial

system.

DEFINITIONS

11.
The definitions below are used in this Final Notice:

(a)
the “Act” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;

(b)
“APER” or the “Statements of Principle” means the part of the FSA Handbook

relating to the Statements of Principle and Code of Conduct for Approved

Persons;

(c)
“CF4” means the FSA’s controlled function 4 (Partner);

(d)
“DEPP” means the Decision Procedures and Penalties Manual in the FSA

Handbook;

(e)
“EG” means the FSA’s Enforcement Guide;

(f)
“FIT” means the FSA’s Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons as set out in

the FSA Handbook;

(g)
the “FSA” means the Financial Services Authority;

(h)
the “FSA Handbook” means the FSA Handbook of rules and guidance;

(i)
“HDA” means HD Administrators LLP, being the limited liability partnership

at which Ms King was an approved person;

(j)
the “HD SIPP scheme” means the SIPP scheme operated and administered by

HDA;

(k)
“HMRC” means Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

(l)
“Ms King” means Ms Michele Louise King;

(m)
“Part IV Permission” means the permission to carry on regulated activities

granted to HDA by the FSA under Part IV of the Act;

(n)
the “relevant period” means the period between 21 August 2008 and 22 March

2012;

(o)
a “significant influence function” means a controlled function which is likely

to result in the person responsible for its performance exercising a significant

influence on the conduct of a firm’s affairs in relation to a regulated activity of

that firm;

(p)
a “SIPP” means a self invested personal pension;

(q)
the “Threshold Conditions” means the FSA’s minimum standards for

becoming and remaining authorised, as set out in Schedule 6 of the Act; and

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

FACTS AND MATTERS

12.
HDA is the operator of a personal pension scheme, the HD SIPP, which comprised

approximately 422 members. HDA was authorised by the FSA to establish, operate

and wind up a personal pension scheme on 26 April 2007. On 22 March 2012, the

FSA varied the permission granted to HDA by removing the activities in its

permission. On 25 June 2012, HDA entered into liquidation.

13.
Ms King became a partner at HDA in, or around, June 2008, following the resignation

of one of the two partners. Ms King’s prior employment history was as an accounts

administrator. Prior to becoming a partner she had performed some minor

administrative tasks in relation to HDA.

Failure to understand her responsibilities as an approved person

14.
Prior to her approval on 21 August 2008, Ms King had no knowledge or

understanding of the FSA’s Approved Persons regime or the significance of applying

for approval to perform a controlled function at an authorised firm. Ms King did not

thereafter take any steps to inform herself of the nature of her newly acquired

responsibilities. This was despite her having read and signed the approval application

form submitted to the FSA on her behalf by HDA.

15.
Ms King did not take any steps to find out for herself what her regulatory

responsibilities might be, for example by reference to the FSA Handbook and the

Statements of Principle. In fact, Ms King stated in interview that she had little

understanding of the purpose and function of the FSA itself, and had until then never

heard of the Approved Persons regime or the Statements of Principle. Ms King held

the significant influence function of CF4 for a period of four years without any basic

understanding of her role and responsibilities.

Failure to discharge her responsibilities as an approved person

Understanding the nature of HDA’s business

16.
At the time of obtaining FSA approval, and throughout the relevant period, Ms King

also had very limited knowledge of the purpose and function of SIPP schemes

generally, despite being a senior manager at a SIPP operator. In particular, Ms King

did not understand, nor make efforts to inform herself as to, the function,

responsibility and purpose of the various entities involved in the administration of the

HD SIPP, including the scheme operator and the registered scheme administrator. Ms

King was also unaware of the role of the scheme trustee, despite having been

appointed a director of the HD SIPP scheme trustee company. Ms King’s

understanding of the technical requirements of operating a SIPP scheme was similarly

lacking; for instance, she had no knowledge of the investment types allowable under

HMRC rules, when and how investors can receive benefits from their SIPPs, or the

nature of the investments held within the HD SIPP specifically.

Understanding HDA’s regulatory obligations

17.
Ms King also failed to inform herself, upon approval or at any stage subsequently, of

HDA’s specific regulatory responsibilities. At the most basic level, Ms King did not

seek to inform herself of the scope of the permission granted by the FSA to HDA. She

therefore had no understanding of HDA’s permission to carry out its regulated

activities or to hold client money (or any limitation thereon).

Involvement in the management and day-to-day operation of HDA

18.
After joining the partnership, and obtaining approval as CF4, Ms King did not seek to

increase her level of involvement in the management of HDA or its day-to-day

running. Ms King did not request that partner meetings take place at which she could

be present and she did not ask to see HDA’s audited accounts.

19.
Ms King conducted only a small number of administrative tasks in relation to the

scheme while continuing to function in her original role as an administrator employed

by another company. Even when regular administration meetings were held in relation

to the HD SIPP, Ms King did not seek to be involved.

FAILINGS

20.
The statutory provisions and regulatory requirements relevant to this Final Notice are

referred to in the Annex.

7

21.
Ms King breached Statement of Principle 6 by failing to exercise due skill, care and

diligence in managing the business of HDA, for which she was responsible in her

controlled function. Ms King had a responsibility to participate fully in the

management and oversight of the firm as an approved person. However, because she

failed to turn her mind to the nature of the responsibilities attaching to her role as

CF4, and consequently failed to embed herself in the business of HDA, she was not

equipped to discharge her regulatory responsibilities.

22.
Ms King read and signed the application form for her approval as CF4 and provided

important personal information to the FSA in support of that application. She should

have been on notice, owing to the nature of the application process itself, of the

serious implications attaching to FSA approval. Instead, Ms King paid no attention to

the nature of the role she had taken on. She should have considered the meaning and

effect of the approval for which she had agreed to apply, and even limited enquiry, for

example on the FSA’s website, would have enabled her to identify the significance of

her role. She could then have taken steps to address the deficiencies in her

understanding and to equip herself properly to discharge her regulatory

responsibilities.

23.
It is vital that persons seeking and obtaining approval to perform a controlled function

fully understand their responsibilities and obligations.

Not fit and proper

24.
Ms King’s conduct is significantly short of the minimum regulatory standards of

competence and capability required for approved persons performing controlled

functions, and in particular those performing significant influence functions. As such,

she is not fit and proper to perform any controlled function in relation to any regulated

activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional

firm.

SANCTION

Public censure

25.
The FSA issues a public censure to Ms King for breaching Statement of Principle 6.

26.
The FSA’s policy on the imposition of financial penalties is set out in Chapter 6 of

DEPP. The relevant sections of DEPP are set out in more detail in the Annex. Since

the gravamen of Ms King’s failings occurred before the change in the regulatory

provisions governing the determination of financial penalties and public censures on 6

March 2010, the FSA has applied the provisions that were in place before that date.

All references to DEPP in this Notice are references to the version that was in force

prior to 6 March 2010.

27.
In addition, the FSA has had regard to the corresponding provisions of Chapter 7 of

EG in force during the relevant period.

28.
The principal purpose of issuing a public censure or imposing a financial penalty is to

promote high standards of conduct by deterring persons who have committed

regulatory breaches from committing further breaches, helping to deter others from

committing similar breaches and demonstrating generally the benefits of compliant

behaviour. A public censure is a tool that the FSA may employ to help it achieve its

regulatory objectives.

29.
In determining whether a financial penalty or public censure is appropriate, the FSA is

required to consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. Applying the criteria

set out in DEPP 6.2.1G (regarding whether or not to take action for a financial penalty

or public censure) and 6.4.2G (regarding whether to impose a financial penalty or a

public censure), the FSA considers that a public censure is an appropriate sanction.

30.
In deciding to issue a public censure, the FSA considered that the factors below were

particularly relevant in this case.

Deterrence (DEPP 6.4.2G(1)

31.
In deciding to publish a statement of Ms King’s misconduct the FSA has had regard

to the need to ensure that those who are approved persons are fit and proper and fully

engage with their regulatory responsibilities. The FSA considers that a public censure

should be imposed to demonstrate to Ms King and others the seriousness with which

the FSA regards her behaviour.

The seriousness of the breach in question (DEPP 6.4.2G(3))

32.
Despite being an approved person and holding a significant influence function, Ms

King did not engage with the running of the firm at any time and over an extended

period.

Conduct following the breach (DEPP 6.4.2G(5))

33.
Ms King admitted that she did not engage with the business of the firm and provided

full and immediate co-operation to the FSA.

Previous action taken by the FSA (DEPP 6.4.2G(7))

34.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the FSA took into account sanctions imposed

by the FSA on other approved persons for similar behaviour. This was considered

alongside the deterrent purpose for which the FSA imposes sanctions.

The financial impact on the person concerned (DEPP 6.4.2G(8))

35.
The FSA views Ms King’s misconduct as very serious and would have imposed a

financial penalty of £20,000. However, the FSA has taken into account in determining

that it is appropriate to issue a public censure, rather than impose a financial penalty,

that Ms King has provided verifiable evidence that she would suffer serious financial

hardship if the FSA imposed a financial penalty.

36.
For these reasons, it is appropriate to publicly censure Ms King, but not to impose a

financial penalty on her.

Withdrawal of approval and prohibition

37.
It is appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances to withdraw the approval

given to Ms King to perform the controlled function of CF4 at HDA because she is

not competent or capable of performing this function, and to make an order

prohibiting Ms King from performing any controlled function in relation to any

regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt

professional firm because she is not a fit and proper person in terms of competence

and capability.

38.
Ms King has demonstrated that she is not competent to manage the business of an

authorised person. In the interests of consumer protection, and to maintain confidence

in the financial system, it is appropriate to impose a prohibition order on Ms King in

the terms set out above.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Decision maker

39.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Notice was made by the

Settlement Decision Makers.

40.
This Final Notice is given under, and in accordance with, section 390 of the Act.

41.
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 FSA must

publish such information about the matter to which this notice relates as the FSA

considers appropriate. The information may be published in such manner as the FSA

considers appropriate. However, the FSA may not publish information if such

publication would, in the opinion of the FSA, be unfair to Ms King or prejudicial to

the interests of consumers.

42.
The FSA intends to publish such information about the matter to which this Final

Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

FSA contacts

43.
For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Rachel West (direct

line: 020 7066 0142; fax: 020 7066 0143) of the Enforcement and Financial Crime

Division of the FSA.

FSA Enforcement and Financial Crime Division

ANNEX

STATUTORY PROVISIONS, REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND POLICY

Statutory provisions

1.
The FSA’s regulatory objectives are set out in section 2(2) of the Act and include the

protection of consumers.

2.
Section 56 of the Act provides that the FSA may make a prohibition order if it appears

to the FSA that an individual is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in

relation to a regulated activity carried on by an authorised person. Such an order may

relate to a specific regulated activity, an activity falling within a specified description

or all regulated activities.

3.
Section 63 of the Act provides that the FSA may withdraw an individual’s approval to

carry out a controlled function given under section 59 of the Act if it considers that the

person in respect of whom it was given is not a fit and proper person to perform the

function to which the approval relates.

4.
Section 66 of the Act provides that the FSA may publish a statement of a person’s

misconduct where it appears to the FSA that the individual is guilty of misconduct and

it is satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to take action. Misconduct

includes failure, while an approved person, to comply with a statement of principle

issued under section 64 of the Act or to have been knowingly concerned in a

contravention by the relevant authorised person of a requirement imposed on that

authorised person by or under the Act.


Handbook provisions

5.
In exercising its power to impose a public censure, the FSA must have regard to

relevant provisions in the FSA Handbook. The main provisions relevant to the action

specified above are set out below.

Statements of Principle and the Code of Practice for Approved Persons

6.
APER sets out the Statements of Principle as they relate to approved persons and

descriptions of conduct which, in the opinion of the FSA, do not comply with a

Statement of Principle. It further describes factors which, in the opinion of the FSA,

are to be taken into account in determining whether or not an approved person’s

conduct complies with a Statement of Principle.

7.
APER 3.1.3G states that when establishing compliance with or a breach of a

Statement of Principle, account will be taken of the context in which a course of

conduct was undertaken, including the precise circumstances of the individual case,

the characteristics of the particular controlled function and the behaviour to be

expected in that function.

8.
APER 3.1.4G provides that an approved person will only be in breach of a Statement

of Principle where he is personally culpable, that is in a situation where his conduct

was deliberate or where his standard of conduct was below that which would be

reasonable in all the circumstances.

9.
APER 3.1.6G provides that APER (and in particular the specific examples of

behaviour which may be in breach of a generic description of conduct in the code) is

not exhaustive of the kind of conduct that may contravene the Statements of Principle.

10.
The Statement of Principle relevant to this matter is Statement of Principle 6, which

provides that an approved person performing a significant influence function must

exercise due skill, care and diligence in managing the business of the firm for which

he is responsible in his controlled function.

11.
APER 3.1.8G provides, in relation to applying Statements of Principle 5 to 7, that the

nature, scale and complexity of the business under management and the role and

responsibility of the individual performing a significant influence function within the

firm will be relevant in assessing whether an approved person’s conduct was

reasonable.

12.
APER 3.3.1E states that in determining whether or not the conduct of an approved

person performing a significant influence function complies with Statements of

Principle 5 to 7, the following are factors which, in the opinion of the FSA, are to be

taken into account:

(a)
whether he exercised reasonable care when considering the information

available to him;

(b)
whether he reached a reasonable conclusion which he acted on;

(c)
the nature, scale and complexity of the firm’s business;

(d)
his role and responsibility as an approved person performing a significant

influence function; and

(e)
the knowledge he had, or should have had, of regulatory concerns, if any,

arising in the business under his control.

13.
APER 4.6 lists types of conduct which, in the opinion of the FSA, do not comply with

Statement of Principle 6.

14.
APER 4.6.3E states that failing to take reasonable steps to adequately inform himself

about the affairs of the business for which he is responsible is conduct that does not

comply with Statement of Principle 6.

15.
APER 4.6.12(1)G states that it is important for an approved person performing a

significant influence function to understand the business for which they are

responsible, and they should understand and inform themselves about the business

sufficiently to understand the risks of its trading, credit or other business activities.

DEPP guidance before 6 March 2010

16.
Guidance on the imposition and amount of penalties is set out in Chapter 6 of DEPP.

Changes to DEPP 6 were introduced on 6 March 2010. The FSA has had regard to the

appropriate provisions of DEPP that applied during the relevant period. Where the

gravamen of the misconduct occurred before 6 March 2010, the FSA considers that

the provisions of DEPP which applied before that date should apply.

17.
DEPP 6.1.2G provides that the principal purpose of imposing a public censure is to

promote high standards of regulatory and/or market conduct by deterring persons who

have committed breaches from committing further breaches, helping to deter other

persons from committing similar breaches, and demonstrating generally the benefits

of compliant behaviour. Public censures are therefore tools that the FSA may employ

to help it to achieve its regulatory objectives.

18.
DEPP 6.4.1G provides that the FSA will consider all the relevant circumstances of a

case when deciding whether to impose a penalty or issue a public censure.

19.
DEPP 6.4.2G sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that may be relevant to

determining whether a public censure or financial penalty is appropriate to be imposed

on a person under the Act. The following factors are relevant to this case:

Deterrence: DEPP 6.4.2G(1)

20.
When determining whether to issue a public censure rather than a financial penalty,

the FSA will have regard to the principal purpose for which it imposes sanctions,

namely to promote high standards of regulatory and/or market conduct by deterring

persons who have committed breaches from committing further breaches and helping

to deter other persons from committing similar breaches, as well as demonstrating

generally the benefits of compliant business.

Benefit resulting from the breach: DEPP 6.4.2G(2)

21.
The FSA will consider whether the person has made a profit or avoided a loss as a

result of the breach, on the basis that a person should not be permitted to benefit from

the breach.

The nature, seriousness and impact of the breach in question: DEPP 6.4.2G(3)

22.
The FSA will consider the nature, seriousness and impact of the breach on the basis

that the sanction should reflect the seriousness of the breach. The more serious the

breach, the more likely the FSA is to impose a financial penalty.

Co-operation with FSA and action since the breach: DEPP 6.4.2G(5)

23.
The FSA will consider whether the person has admitted the breach, provided full and

immediate co-operation to the FSA or taken steps to ensure that those who have

suffered loss due to the breach are fully compensated for that loss. Actions of this kind

taken by the person suggest that it may be more proportionate to issue a public

censure than a financial penalty.

Other action taken by the FSA (or a previous regulator): DEPP 6.4.2G(7)

24.
The FSA seeks to apply a consistent approach to determining the appropriate level of

penalty. The FSA may take into account previous decisions made in relation to similar

misconduct.

Impact on the person: DEPP 6.4.2G(8)

25.
The FSA will also consider the impact on the person of a financial penalty. In

exceptional circumstances only, the FSA may decide, based verifiable evidence, that

the person does not have adequate resources with which to pay a financial penalty and

may therefore, in those exceptional circumstances, lower the level of penalty or issue

a public censure instead.

26.
The FSA’s policy on exercising its enforcement power is set out in EG, which came

into effect on 28 August 2007.

27.
The FSA’s approach to financial penalties and public censures is set out in Chapter 7

of EG.

28.
EG 7.1 states that the effective and proportionate use of the FSA’s powers to enforce

the requirements of the Statements of Principle plays an important role in pursuit of

the FSA’s regulatory objectives. Imposing public censures shows that the FSA is

upholding regulatory standards and helps to maintain market confidence and deter

financial crime. An increased public awareness of regulatory standards also

contributes to the protection of consumers.

29.
EG 7.2 states that the FSA has the power to publish a statement against an approved

person under section 66 of the Act.

30.
EG 7.3 states that the FSA has measures available to it where it considers it is

appropriate to take protective or remedial action, including the withdrawal of an

individual’s status as an approved person and/or the prohibition of an individual from

performing a specified function in relation to a regulated activity.

31.
The FSA’s approach to exercising its powers to make prohibition orders and withdraw

approvals is set out at Chapter 9 of EG.

32.
EG 9.1 states that the FSA’s power under section 56 of the Act to prohibit individuals

who are not fit and proper from carrying out controlled functions in relation to

regulated activities helps the FSA to work towards achieving its regulatory objectives.

The FSA may exercise this power to make a prohibition order where it considers that,

to achieve any of those 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.

33.
EG 9.2 states that the FSA’s effective use of the power under section 63 of the Act to

withdraw approval from an approved person will also help to ensure high standards of

regulatory conduct by preventing an approved person from continuing to perform the

controlled function to which the approval relates if he is not a fit and proper person to

perform that function. Where it considers this is appropriate, the FSA may prohibit an

approved person, in addition to withdrawing their approval.

34.
EG 9.3 states that in deciding whether to make a prohibition order and/or, in the case

of an approved person, to withdraw its approval, the FSA will consider all the relevant

circumstances.

35.
EG 9.4 sets out the general scope of the FSA’s power in this respect. The FSA has 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.

36.
EG 9.5 provides that the scope of the prohibition order will depend on the range of

functions which the individual concerned 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.

37.
In circumstances where the FSA has concerns about the fitness and propriety of an

approved person, EG 9.8 to 9.14 provides guidance. In particular, EG 9.8 states that

the FSA may consider whether it should prohibit that person from performing

functions in relation to regulated activities, withdraw that person’s approval or both.

In deciding whether to withdraw approval and/or make a prohibition order, the FSA

will consider whether its regulatory objectives can be achieved adequately by

imposing disciplinary sanctions.

38.
EG 9.9 provides that when deciding whether to make a prohibition order against an

approved person, the FSA will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case.

These may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)
whether the individual is fit and proper to perform the functions in relation to

regulated activities. The criteria for assessing the fitness and propriety of

approved persons are set out in FIT 2.1 (honesty, integrity and reputation), FIT

2.2 (competence and capability) and FIT 2.3 (financial soundness) (EG

9.9(2));

(b)
whether, and to what extent, the approved person has:

(i)
failed to comply with the Statements of Principle; or

(ii)
been knowingly concerned in a contravention by the relevant firm of

a requirement imposed on the firm by or under the Act (including the

Principles for Businesses and other rules) (EG 9.9(3));

(c)
the relevance and materiality of any matters indicating unfitness (EG 9.9(5));

(d)
the length of time since the occurrence of any matters indicating unfitness (EG

9.9(6));

(e)
the particular controlled function the approved person is (or was) performing,

the nature and activities of the firm concerned and the markets in which he

operates (EG 9.9(7)); and

(f)
the severity of the risk which the individual poses to consumers and to

confidence in the financial system (EG 9.9(8)).

39.
EG 9.12 provides a number of examples of types of behaviour which have previously

resulted in the FSA deciding to issue a prohibition order. The examples include

severe acts of dishonesty, which may have resulted in financial crime and serious lack

of competence (EG 9.12(3)).

40.
EG 9.14 states that where the FSA considers it is appropriate to withdraw an

individual’s approval to perform a controlled function within a particular firm, it will

also consider, at the very least, whether it should prohibit the individual from

performing that function more generally. Depending on the circumstances, it may

consider that the individual should also be prohibited from performing other

functions.

41.
EG 9.23 provides that in appropriate cases the FSA may take other action against an

individual in addition to making a prohibition order and/or withdrawing its approval,

including the use of its power to impose a financial penalty.