FINAL NOTICE

ACTION

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

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

3.
Mr Peters 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 Peters from performing any
function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person,
exempt person or exempt professional firm. The Prohibition Order takes effect
from 1 November 2016.

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 Peters dated 22
August 2016;


“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide;

“FIT” means the Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons sourcebook, part of the
Handbook;

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

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

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

“the Warning Notice” means the Warning Notice given to Mr Peters dated 1
August 2016.

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
Peters 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 conduct demonstrates a clear and serious lack of
honesty, integrity and reputation. Specifically, Mr Peters:

(a)
was convicted on 28 January 2015 of one count of conspiracy to defraud
and one count of carrying on or purporting to carry on a regulated activity
in the UK without authorisation or exemption;


(b)
was sentenced on 27 April 2015 to five years’ imprisonment and 18
months’ imprisonment respectively for the offences specified at paragraph
7(a) (to be served concurrently). On the same date he was also sentenced
to an additional six months’ imprisonment for contempt of court (to be
served consecutively); and


(c)
was disqualified from being a company director under section 2 of the
Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for 10 years, for the offences
specified at paragraph 7(a).



FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

8.
On 24 February 2012, Southwark Crown Court issued a Restraint Order to Mr
Peters prohibiting him from disposing of or dealing with assets.


9.
On 2 December 2014, the Authority submitted an application to have Mr Peters
imprisoned for contempt of court for breaching the terms of the Restraint Order
specified at paragraph 8.

10.
On 28 January 2015, Mr Peters was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of:

(a) one count of conspiracy to defraud; and

(b) one count of carrying on or purporting to carry on a regulated activity in

the UK without authorisation or exemption, contrary to sections 19 and
23(1) of the Act.

11.
On 27 April 2015, Mr Peters was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to five
years’ imprisonment and 18 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for
the offences summarised at paragraph 10 above respectively. On the same date,
he was also sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in respect of contempt of
court, to be served consecutively.

12.
Mr Peters was also disqualified from being a company director under section 2 of
the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for 10 years for the offences
specified at paragraph 10.

13.
Mr Peters’ offences were committed dishonestly over a prolonged period of time
(more than three years) and the scheme to which his offences related involved
total losses of just under £4.3 million by more than 100 investors.

DECISION MAKER

14.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was made
by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

IMPORTANT

15.
This Final Notice is given to Mr Peters in accordance with section 390(1) of the
Act.

16.
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 Peters or prejudicial to the interest of consumers.

17.
The Authority intends to publish this Final Notice and such information about the
matter to which this Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.

18.
For more information concerning this matter generally, please contact Roger
Hylton at the Authority (direct line: 020 7066 8168).

John Kirby
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division


ANNEX

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1.
The Authority’s operational objectives include: securing an appropriate degree of
protection for consumers (section 1C of the Act), and protecting and enhancing
the integrity of the UK financial system (section 1D of the Act).

2.
Section 56(1) of the Act provides:

“The [Authority] may make a prohibition order if it appears to it that an individual
is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a regulated
activity carried on by -

(a)
an authorised person,

(b)
a person who is an exempt person in relation to that activity, or

(c)
a person to whom, as a result of Part 20, the general prohibition does not

apply in relation to that activity.”

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

3.
In exercising its power to make a prohibition order, the Authority must have
regard to guidance published in the Handbook. 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
statutory 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,
amongst 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 such an individual, 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 Approved Persons

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. 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 the 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 certain offences including
those of dishonesty, fraud, financial crime or an offence under legislation relating
to financial services (amongst other things).