1

FINAL NOTICE

IRN:
RMT01073

ACTION

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

2.
The Authority gave Mr Taylor the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Taylor 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 Taylor 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 Taylor 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 13
November 2018.

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;

2

“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide;

“Mr Taylor” means Russell Taylor;

“the Decision Notice” means the Decision Notice issued to Mr Taylor on 12
September 2018;

“FIT” means the Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons and specified significant-
harm functions sourcebook;

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

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

“the Warning Notice” means the Warning Notice issued to Mr Taylor on 14 August
2018.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

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

SUMMARY OF THE 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 Taylor 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 Taylor:

(a) was convicted, upon his own confession, on 6 March 2018, of one count of
conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law; and

(b) was sentenced on 3 May 2018 to five years’ imprisonment and was disqualified
as a director for 12 years, under section 2 of the Company Directors
Disqualification Act 1986.

FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

8.
Between 1 April 2005 and 12 April 2016, Mr Taylor held customer facing functions
at Taylor and Taylor Associates Ltd (in liquidation).

9.
Since 1 September 2008, Mr Taylor has been approved by the Authority to perform
various significant influence and customer facing functions in relation to Vantage
Investment Group Ltd (in liquidation).

10.
On 6 March 2018, Mr Taylor was convicted at Norwich Crown Court of one count of
conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law, namely for conspiring to defraud

3

clients of his investment advisory firm by dishonestly causing those clients to invest
in a fund set up by him and his brother, Alan Taylor.

11.
On 3 May 2018, Mr Taylor was sentenced at Norwich Crown Court to five years’
imprisonment for the offence summarised at paragraph 10 above.

12.
In his sentencing remarks (made on 3 May 2018), Judge Bate commented on the
aggravating features of Mr Taylor’s case. These features included the position of
trust Mr Taylor was in whilst working as an independent financial adviser at Taylor
& Taylor Associates Ltd; the prolonged period of time over which Mr Taylor
committed the offence (over seven years); and the number of individuals affected
by his dishonesty (approximately 65 clients). Judge Bate referred to the means by
which Mr Taylor defrauded his clients: he dishonestly caused his clients to invest in
the Vantage Trader Index Fund, having advised those clients that the investment
was suitable for them; concealed the high-risk and speculative nature of the Fund;
failed to disclose his conflict of interest; and advised them to move their funds to
a self-invested personal pension scheme without disclosing that their investment
would be transferred into the Fund.

13.
In sentencing, Judge Bate considered Mr Taylor’s culpability and responsibility to
be high and remarked that “This was an elaborate and prolonged joint breach of
trust against a large number of your own loyal clients, most of whom were already
pensioners or soon to become so.”

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 Taylor in accordance with section 388 of the Act.

16.
The Authority must publish such information about 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 information would, in the opinion of the Authority, be
unfair to Mr Taylor or prejudicial to the interests of consumers.

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

18.
For more information concerning this matter generally, Mr Taylor should contact
Tania Dratcu at the Authority (direct line: 0207 066 6764).

Anna Couzens
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division

5

ANNEX

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

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

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

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

(a) an authorised person,

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

(c) a person to whom, as a result of Part 20, the general prohibition does not
apply in relation to that activity.”

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

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

The Enforcement Guide

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

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

6

7.
EG 9.5.1 states that where the Authority is considering whether to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider the severity of the risk posed by the individual and may prohibit him
where it considers that it is appropriate to achieve one or more of the Authority’s
statutory objectives.

8.
EG 9.5.2 provides that, when considering whether to exercise its power to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. These may include, but are
not limited to, the factors set out in EG 9.3.2. Those factors include: whether the
individual is fit and proper to perform functions in relation to regulated activities
(noting the criteria set out in FIT 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3); the relevance and materiality
of any matters indicating unfitness; the length of time since the occurrence of any
matters indicating unfitness; and the severity of the risk which the individual poses
to consumers and to confidence in the financial system.

Fit and Proper Test for 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 including, but not limited to,
those set out in FIT 2.1.3G. It notes, amongst other things and by way of example,
that:

“… conviction for a criminal offence will not automatically mean an application will
be rejected. The [Authority] treats each candidate’s application on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the seriousness of, and 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 and financial crime (amongst other things).