Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Arian Financial LLP v The Financial Conduct Authority

[2024] UKUT 352 (TCC)
A company was fined for failing to properly prevent money laundering. The judge thought the fine was too high, so they lowered it. The important thing is that companies need good systems to stop this kind of crime, and the judge looked carefully at how the fine was calculated to make sure it was fair.

Key Facts

  • Arian Financial LLP (Applicant) breached Principles 2 and 3 of the FCA's Principles for Business by having inadequate systems and controls to mitigate the risk of fraudulent trading and money laundering.
  • The breaches related to the Applicant's involvement with the Solo Group, involving approximately £52 billion worth of trades.
  • The FCA imposed a £744,745 financial penalty, which the Applicant challenged as disproportionate.
  • The Applicant did not dispute the breaches but contested the penalty amount.
  • The Tribunal considered the FCA's five-step penalty framework (DEPP 6.5A) in its assessment.

Legal Principles

Principle 2: Conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence.

FCA's Principles for Businesses

Principle 3: Take reasonable care to organise and control affairs responsibly and effectively, with adequate risk management systems.

FCA's Principles for Businesses

SYSC 6.3.1 R: Firms must have systems and controls to identify, assess, monitor, and manage money laundering risk.

FCA's Handbook

Section 206 FSMA: FCA can impose financial penalties for contravening relevant requirements.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

DEPP 6.5A: FCA's five-step framework for determining financial penalties (disgorgement, seriousness of breach, mitigating/aggravating factors, deterrence, settlement discount).

FCA's Handbook

Tribunal's role: Complete rehearing of issues, not bound by FCA policy but pays due regard, overriding objective of doing justice.

Section 133 FSMA, Tariq Carrimjee v FCA, Westwood Independent Financial Planners v FCA, FCA v Da Vinci Invest Limited

Disgorgement: Firm should not benefit from breach; flexible interpretation, considering expenses and pre-existing contractual obligations.

DEPP 6.5.2, Da Vinci, Ford v FCA

Outcomes

The Tribunal reduced the financial penalty from £744,745 to £288,962.53.

The Tribunal found that the FCA had incorrectly calculated the disgorgement amount by not deducting commissions paid to Hopa (which was essentially an expense). The Tribunal also adjusted the penalty based on its own assessment of the seriousness of the breach, mitigating and aggravating factors, and a revised approach to deterrence.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.