On 22 March 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority won its case against Achilles Macris, a former senior manager employed by JP Morgan Chase and one of the bankers involved in the “London Whale” case.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the FCA did not identify Achilles Macris in a decision notice when it fined JP Morgan Chase Bank £137.6m.
The bank’s international chief investment officer complained in 2013 that the FCA identified him in its highly critical assessment involving the ‘London Whale’ trading debacle, without giving him the chance to defend himself.
In his judgement, published today (22 March) Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption ruled that none of the terms used by the FCA as synonym’s for Mr Macris would have identified him to the general public.
Commenting on the Supreme Court outcome, Chris Dyke, Associate at Corker Binning, said the judgment of the Supreme Court would be a relief for the FCA.
He said: “The overturned Court of Appeal decision exposed the tension between the FCA’s desire to quickly settle regulatory investigations into financial institutions and its public criticism of the employees of those companies necessitated by those settlements.
The time and resources required to deal with the interventions and representations of a potentially very large pool of individuals would have been a very heavy burden for the FCA and could have significantly slowed the speed of regulatory enforcement.”
Does an accused have the right to know what materials they will be cross examined with prior to trial?
September 27 2022
Nick Barnard comments on the regulation of stablecoins in Law 360
September 20 2022
David Corker comments on televised sentencing in The Times
September 1 2022