Final Notice
On , the Financial Conduct Authority issued a Final Notice to Philippe Moryoussef
FINAL NOTICE
ACTION
1.
For the reasons given in this Notice and pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Authority
hereby makes an order prohibiting Philippe Moryoussef from performing any function in
relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised or exempt person, or exempt
professional firm.
2.
The prohibition order takes effect from the date of this Notice.
REASONS FOR THE ACTION
3.
As set out in more detail in the facts and matters described below, Mr Moryoussef:
(1)
was convicted on 29 June 2018 of one count of conspiracy to defraud relating to
EURIBOR submissions made at Barclays under his supervision; and
(2)
was sentenced on 19 July 2018 to 8 years’ imprisonment.
4.
In view of the facts and matters set out below, the Authority has concluded that Mr
Moryoussef is not a fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to any
regulated activity carried on by an 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 functions in relation to regulated
activities.
5.
In reaching this conclusion, the Authority has had regard to all relevant circumstances,
including: the relevance and materiality of the offence; the fact that Mr Moryoussef has
been convicted of an offence of dishonesty concerning financial crime and market
manipulation; the fact that the offence was committed whilst he was approved as an
individual by the Authority; and the severity of the risk posed by Mr Moryoussef to
consumers and financial institutions, and to confidence in the market generally.
6.
The Authority considers that it is appropriate to impose the prohibition order set out in
paragraph 1 to achieve its consumer protection and integrity objectives (sections 1C and
1D of the Act, respectively).
DEFINITIONS
7.
The definitions below are used in this Notice:
“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;
“Barclays” means Barclays Bank Plc and its associated entities;
“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide;
“EURIBOR” means the Euro Interbank Offered Rate;
“FIT” means the Authority’s Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel, part
of the Authority’s Handbook of rules and guidance;
“RDC” means the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the Authority (see further under
Procedural Matters below);
“SFO” means the Serious Fraud Office; and
“Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
8.
The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Notice are set out in Annex A.
FACTS AND MATTERS
9.
Mr Moryoussef was previously approved by the Authority to perform a number of controlled
functions. Among others, at Barclays, he held the following controlled functions:
(1)
CF26 (Customer Trading) from 12 May 2005 to 26 August 2005; and
(2)
CF21 (Investment Adviser) from 30 August 2005 to 22 August 2007.
10.
On 16 January 2014, the Authority gave Mr Moryoussef a Warning Notice proposing to
impose a financial penalty and prohibition order on him. The regulatory proceedings were
stayed on 23 January 2014 pending the SFO’s decision whether to charge Mr Moryoussef
in relation to conduct overlapping with the subject of the Warning Notice.
3
11.
Mr Moryoussef was subsequently charged by the SFO with the offence described in
paragraph 12 below.
12.
On 28 March 2019 Mr Moryoussef was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of one count
of conspiracy to defraud in respect of fixing EURIBOR.
13.
The single count upon which Mr Moryoussef was convicted involved him, whilst an
employee of Barclays, conspiring with others to defraud in that:
(1)
knowing or believing that Barclays was party to trading referenced to the EURIBOR,
(2)
they dishonestly agreed to procure or make submissions of rates into the EURIBOR
setting process by Barclays which were false or misleading in that they:
(a) were intended to create an advantage to the trading positions of employees
of Barclays and
(b) deliberately disregarded the proper basis for the submission of those rates
thereby intending that the economic interests of others may be prejudiced.
14.
On 19 July 2018 Mr Moryoussef was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In the
sentencing remarks, the judge noted:
“Greed was clearly his principal motivation. Although his income was more than
generous by anyone’s standards, he thought he deserved more. He asked Barclays to
change the way he was paid, asking to be paid a percentage of the profits he made
for the bank […].”
15.
Mr Moryoussef stayed in France during his trial and was therefore convicted in his absence.
He has not served his prison sentence and attempts to extradite him were unsuccessful.
16.
An application by Mr Moryoussef for leave to appeal his conviction was refused.
Fitness and propriety
17.
The facts and nature of Mr Moryoussef’s offence show that he lacks honesty and integrity,
and is therefore not fit and proper.
18.
The Authority has concluded that it is appropriate to prohibit Mr Moryoussef from
performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised
person, exempt person, or exempt professional person.
REPRESENTATIONS
19.
By a letter of 18 January 2022, Mr Moryoussef was given the opportunity to make
representations to the Authority about the lifting of the stay. No representations were
received, and the stay was lifted.
20.
Through the Warning Notice and Decision Notice, the Authority gave notice that it proposed
to take the action described above and Mr Moryoussef was given the opportunity to make
representations to the Authority about the proposed action. No representations having
been received by the Authority from Mr Moryoussef within the time allowed, the Authority
has decided to take the action described above.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
21.
This Notice is given to Mr Moryoussef under, and in accordance with, section 390 of the
Act.
Decision maker
22.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Notice was made by the
Regulatory Decisions Committee.
Confidentiality and publicity
23.
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 you or prejudicial to the interests of consumers
or detrimental to the stability of the UK financial system.
24.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this Notice
relates as it considers appropriate.
25.
For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Kerri Scott (direct line:
0207 066 4620) at the Authority.
Mario Theodosiou
Head of Department, Enforcement and Market Oversight Division
Financial Conduct Authority
ANNEX A
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY 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.
The Authority has the power, pursuant to section 56 of the Act, to make a prohibition order
if it appears to the Authority 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, exempt
person or exempt professional firm. Pursuant to section 56(2) of the Act, such an order
may relate to a specified function, any function falling within a specified description or any
function.
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 Fit and Proper test for Approved Persons ("FIT")
1.
FIT sets out the criteria for assessing a person's fitness and propriety.
2.
FIT 1.3.1BG(1) states that the Authority will have regard to, among other things, a
person's honesty and integrity when assessing the fitness and propriety of a person to
perform a particular controlled function.
3.
FIT 1.3.3G states that the criteria listed in FIT 2.1 to FIT 2.3 are guidance and will be
applied in general terms where the Authority is determining a person's fitness and
propriety, and that it would be impossible to produce a definitive list of all the matters
which would be relevant to a particular determination.
4.
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 which may' have arisen either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The
Authority should be informed of these matters, but will consider the circumstances only
where relevant to the requirements and standards of the regulatory system. For example,
under FIT 2.1.3G(1), 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.
·
5.
FIT 2.1.3G states that the matters referred to in FIT 2.1.1G to which the Authority will
have regard, include (but are not limited to) whether the person has been convicted of
any criminal offence, with particular consideration being given to (among others) offences
of dishonesty, financial crime and market manipulation.
Prohibition order
1.
The Authority's approach to deciding whether to impose a prohibition order, and the scope
of any such prohibition order, is set out in Chapter 9 of EG.
2.
EG 9.1 sets out how the Authority's power to make a prohibition order under section 56 of
the Act helps it work towards achieving its statutory objectives. The Authority may exercise
this power 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.
3.
EG 9.2.1 states that, in deciding whether to make a prohibition order, the Authority will
consider all the relevant circumstances including whether other enforcement action should
be taken or has been taken already against that individual by the Authority.
4.
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 the range of regulated activities to
which the individual's lack of fitness and propriety is relevant. Depending on the
circumstances of each case, the Authority may seek to: prohibit individuals from
performing any class of function in relation to any class of regulated activity; limit the
prohibition order to specific functions in relation to specific regulated activities; or make
an order prohibiting an individual from being employed by a particular firm, type of firm
or any firm.
5.
EG 9.2.3 states that the scope of a 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.
6.
EG. 9.5.1 states that, where the Authority is considering making 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 statutory objectives.
7.
EG 9.5.2 states that, 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), where appropriate, the factors set
out in paragraph 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.
ACTION
1.
For the reasons given in this Notice and pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Authority
hereby makes an order prohibiting Philippe Moryoussef from performing any function in
relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised or exempt person, or exempt
professional firm.
2.
The prohibition order takes effect from the date of this Notice.
REASONS FOR THE ACTION
3.
As set out in more detail in the facts and matters described below, Mr Moryoussef:
(1)
was convicted on 29 June 2018 of one count of conspiracy to defraud relating to
EURIBOR submissions made at Barclays under his supervision; and
(2)
was sentenced on 19 July 2018 to 8 years’ imprisonment.
4.
In view of the facts and matters set out below, the Authority has concluded that Mr
Moryoussef is not a fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to any
regulated activity carried on by an 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 functions in relation to regulated
activities.
5.
In reaching this conclusion, the Authority has had regard to all relevant circumstances,
including: the relevance and materiality of the offence; the fact that Mr Moryoussef has
been convicted of an offence of dishonesty concerning financial crime and market
manipulation; the fact that the offence was committed whilst he was approved as an
individual by the Authority; and the severity of the risk posed by Mr Moryoussef to
consumers and financial institutions, and to confidence in the market generally.
6.
The Authority considers that it is appropriate to impose the prohibition order set out in
paragraph 1 to achieve its consumer protection and integrity objectives (sections 1C and
1D of the Act, respectively).
DEFINITIONS
7.
The definitions below are used in this Notice:
“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;
“Barclays” means Barclays Bank Plc and its associated entities;
“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide;
“EURIBOR” means the Euro Interbank Offered Rate;
“FIT” means the Authority’s Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel, part
of the Authority’s Handbook of rules and guidance;
“RDC” means the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the Authority (see further under
Procedural Matters below);
“SFO” means the Serious Fraud Office; and
“Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS
8.
The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Notice are set out in Annex A.
FACTS AND MATTERS
9.
Mr Moryoussef was previously approved by the Authority to perform a number of controlled
functions. Among others, at Barclays, he held the following controlled functions:
(1)
CF26 (Customer Trading) from 12 May 2005 to 26 August 2005; and
(2)
CF21 (Investment Adviser) from 30 August 2005 to 22 August 2007.
10.
On 16 January 2014, the Authority gave Mr Moryoussef a Warning Notice proposing to
impose a financial penalty and prohibition order on him. The regulatory proceedings were
stayed on 23 January 2014 pending the SFO’s decision whether to charge Mr Moryoussef
in relation to conduct overlapping with the subject of the Warning Notice.
3
11.
Mr Moryoussef was subsequently charged by the SFO with the offence described in
paragraph 12 below.
12.
On 28 March 2019 Mr Moryoussef was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of one count
of conspiracy to defraud in respect of fixing EURIBOR.
13.
The single count upon which Mr Moryoussef was convicted involved him, whilst an
employee of Barclays, conspiring with others to defraud in that:
(1)
knowing or believing that Barclays was party to trading referenced to the EURIBOR,
(2)
they dishonestly agreed to procure or make submissions of rates into the EURIBOR
setting process by Barclays which were false or misleading in that they:
(a) were intended to create an advantage to the trading positions of employees
of Barclays and
(b) deliberately disregarded the proper basis for the submission of those rates
thereby intending that the economic interests of others may be prejudiced.
14.
On 19 July 2018 Mr Moryoussef was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In the
sentencing remarks, the judge noted:
“Greed was clearly his principal motivation. Although his income was more than
generous by anyone’s standards, he thought he deserved more. He asked Barclays to
change the way he was paid, asking to be paid a percentage of the profits he made
for the bank […].”
15.
Mr Moryoussef stayed in France during his trial and was therefore convicted in his absence.
He has not served his prison sentence and attempts to extradite him were unsuccessful.
16.
An application by Mr Moryoussef for leave to appeal his conviction was refused.
Fitness and propriety
17.
The facts and nature of Mr Moryoussef’s offence show that he lacks honesty and integrity,
and is therefore not fit and proper.
18.
The Authority has concluded that it is appropriate to prohibit Mr Moryoussef from
performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised
person, exempt person, or exempt professional person.
REPRESENTATIONS
19.
By a letter of 18 January 2022, Mr Moryoussef was given the opportunity to make
representations to the Authority about the lifting of the stay. No representations were
received, and the stay was lifted.
20.
Through the Warning Notice and Decision Notice, the Authority gave notice that it proposed
to take the action described above and Mr Moryoussef was given the opportunity to make
representations to the Authority about the proposed action. No representations having
been received by the Authority from Mr Moryoussef within the time allowed, the Authority
has decided to take the action described above.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
21.
This Notice is given to Mr Moryoussef under, and in accordance with, section 390 of the
Act.
Decision maker
22.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Notice was made by the
Regulatory Decisions Committee.
Confidentiality and publicity
23.
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 you or prejudicial to the interests of consumers
or detrimental to the stability of the UK financial system.
24.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this Notice
relates as it considers appropriate.
25.
For more information concerning this matter generally, contact Kerri Scott (direct line:
0207 066 4620) at the Authority.
Mario Theodosiou
Head of Department, Enforcement and Market Oversight Division
Financial Conduct Authority
ANNEX A
RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY 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.
The Authority has the power, pursuant to section 56 of the Act, to make a prohibition order
if it appears to the Authority 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, exempt
person or exempt professional firm. Pursuant to section 56(2) of the Act, such an order
may relate to a specified function, any function falling within a specified description or any
function.
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 Fit and Proper test for Approved Persons ("FIT")
1.
FIT sets out the criteria for assessing a person's fitness and propriety.
2.
FIT 1.3.1BG(1) states that the Authority will have regard to, among other things, a
person's honesty and integrity when assessing the fitness and propriety of a person to
perform a particular controlled function.
3.
FIT 1.3.3G states that the criteria listed in FIT 2.1 to FIT 2.3 are guidance and will be
applied in general terms where the Authority is determining a person's fitness and
propriety, and that it would be impossible to produce a definitive list of all the matters
which would be relevant to a particular determination.
4.
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 which may' have arisen either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The
Authority should be informed of these matters, but will consider the circumstances only
where relevant to the requirements and standards of the regulatory system. For example,
under FIT 2.1.3G(1), 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.
·
5.
FIT 2.1.3G states that the matters referred to in FIT 2.1.1G to which the Authority will
have regard, include (but are not limited to) whether the person has been convicted of
any criminal offence, with particular consideration being given to (among others) offences
of dishonesty, financial crime and market manipulation.
Prohibition order
1.
The Authority's approach to deciding whether to impose a prohibition order, and the scope
of any such prohibition order, is set out in Chapter 9 of EG.
2.
EG 9.1 sets out how the Authority's power to make a prohibition order under section 56 of
the Act helps it work towards achieving its statutory objectives. The Authority may exercise
this power 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.
3.
EG 9.2.1 states that, in deciding whether to make a prohibition order, the Authority will
consider all the relevant circumstances including whether other enforcement action should
be taken or has been taken already against that individual by the Authority.
4.
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 the range of regulated activities to
which the individual's lack of fitness and propriety is relevant. Depending on the
circumstances of each case, the Authority may seek to: prohibit individuals from
performing any class of function in relation to any class of regulated activity; limit the
prohibition order to specific functions in relation to specific regulated activities; or make
an order prohibiting an individual from being employed by a particular firm, type of firm
or any firm.
5.
EG 9.2.3 states that the scope of a 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.
6.
EG. 9.5.1 states that, where the Authority is considering making 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 statutory objectives.
7.
EG 9.5.2 states that, 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), where appropriate, the factors set
out in paragraph 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.