Print Article

GFSC fined Mr Karam £10,000 and banned him for x2 years for recklessly making false and/or misleading statements.


The following provides the details from the Guernsey [GFSC]  public statement on Mr Iskandar Karam (“Mr Karam”) who has been fined £10,000 and banned for x2 years for recklessly false and/or misleading statements.

  1. The Commission’s investigation (“the Investigation”) commenced in June 2020 following the investment manager and collective investment scheme being placed into Administration Management.
  2. The Investigation found that Mr Karam had deliberately or recklessly made several false and/or misleading statements in his Personal Questionnaire submitted in connection with an application for a licence and the authorisation of a collective investment scheme.
  3. As a result, the Commission found that Mr Karam had materially contravened the requirements of the 1987 POI Law and needed to meet the fit and proper requirements set out in the Minimum Criteria for Licensing contained in Schedule 4 to the 2020 POI Law.
Mr Karam’s Employment History
  1.  Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that he had been employed as Company A's “Board Member” since March 2002.
  2. However, the Commission’s research showed that
    • Company A was only incorporated in March 2012, some ten years after Mr Karam stated that he commenced employment with Company A.
    • Mr Karam was not appointed as a director of Company A until March 2019, some seventeen years after the date indicated on his Questionnaire.
  3. At the time of the incorporation of Company A, Mr Karam’s wife was the sole director and Mr Karam was named as the contact for any queries on the application for incorporation.
  4. Therefore, Mr Karam must have known that the date on his Questionnaire for his employment as a “Board Member” of Company A was false or misleading.
  5. Further, oral representations conceded that there was never a Board of Directors for Company A or any related company and that the term ‘Board’ was used as a shorthand to describe advisors to the business during its operation.
  6. Mr Karam explained in oral representations that Company A was branded as Company B, which acted as a sole trader, before 2008, when Company B was formed.
  7. Records for Company B show that Mr Karam was never a director of Company B.
  8. Mr Karam also explained in oral representations that the business had existed in various forms and eventually became Company A.
  9. Records for other companies related to Company B show that Mr Karam changed his name from Alexander Karam to Alexander Kaymen in 2005.
  10. Whilst Mr Karam noted on his Questionnaire that he was known as Alexander Karam, he failed to mention that he was also known as Alexander Kaymen.
Mr Karam’s Job Description
  1. Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that his role of “Board Member” of Company A included responsibility for personnel, remuneration, communication between global offices and financial modelling.
  2. However, internet research did not find any substantial details for Company A.
  3. The accounts for Company A for the year ending 30 March 2018 did not demonstrate that Company A was a large company that would require Mr Karam to be responsible for such issues as personnel, remuneration, communication between global offices or financial modelling.
  4. Indeed, the accounts showed that the average number of employees between 30 March 2018 and 30 March 2017 was one.
  5. Mr Karam’s description of his role as a “Board Member” of Company A from 2002 to 2018 was false and misleading.
Mr Karam’s Other Relevant Experience
  1. Regarding other relevant experience, Mr Karam stated on his Personal Questionnaire that he was a member of the Advisory Committee for a Chamber of Commerce endorsed by the UK Government.
  2. The Commission’s research showed that the Chamber of Commerce noted on Mr Karam’s Personal Questionnaire was a company owned by Mr Karam’s wife.
  3. Mr Karam’s wife was also the only director of the Chamber of Commerce.
  4. In an email between advisers and copied to Mr Karam six months after the submission of his Personal Questionnaire, the Chamber of Commerce was inactive since incorporation, there were no patrons, chairperson or advisory board and no income was received through membership fees or from any other sources since incorporation.
  5. Mr Karam should have corrected his advisers in writing.

It was conceded that the Chamber of Commerce did not receive official endorsement from the UK Government; Mr Karam relied upon a memorandum of understanding between an organisation of which the Chamber of Commerce was itself a member and the UK Government.

  1. Mr Karam conceded that there was no Advisory Committee and that the expression about his advisory role to the Chamber of Commerce was shorthand.
  2. This was a further false and/or misleading statement by Mr Karam.
Aggravating Factors
  1. The Commission relies on licensees and prescribed persons to conduct themselves openly and honestly.  The Commission does not have the resources to verify all the information provided to it, and nor should it have to.  Therefore, providing the Commission with false and/or misleading information is a grave matter.
  2. The Personal Questionnaire is one of the primary tools for the Commission to gather information to assess whether a person is fit and proper to hold a prescribed position about an application for a licence.
  3. Providing false and/or misleading information in a Personal Questionnaire undermines the application process.

Mr Iskandar Karam (“Mr Karam”) Also known as: Mr Alexander Karam; and Mr Alexander Kaymen

  1. Mr Karam was the controller of an investment manager licensed under the 1987 POI Law and was a director of a collective investment scheme authorised under the 1987 POI Law.
  2. As such, Mr Karam was required to complete a Personal Questionnaire form.
  3. Mr Karam submitted his Personal Questionnaire on 20 February 2018 in connection with the application for licensing the investment manager and authorisation of the collective investment scheme.
  4. Under section 38(2) of the 1987 POI Law, a person who, in connection with an application for a licence, or connection with an application for a licence, or connection for authorisation or registration of a collective investment scheme, furnishes information or recklessly makes a statement which he knows is false or misleading in a material particular, or recklessly provides information, or makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material fact is guilty of an offence.

On 23 January 2024, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

  1. To impose a financial penalty of £10,000 on Mr Karam under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law.
  2. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Karam from any function for two years.
  3. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law in respect of Mr Karam for two years; and
  4. To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.
  1. The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)
  2. The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the 2020 POI Law”)
  3. The Protection of Investors (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987 (“the 1987 POI Law”)
  4. The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc. (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Fiduciaries Law”)


The Team

Meet the team of industry experts behind Comsure

Find out more

Latest News

Keep up to date with the very latest news from Comsure

Find out more


View our latest imagery from our news and work

Find out more


Think we can help you and your business? Chat to us today

Get In Touch

News Disclaimer

As well as owning and publishing Comsure's copyrighted works, Comsure wishes to use the copyright-protected works of others. To do so, Comsure is applying for exemptions in the UK copyright law. There are certain very specific situations where Comsure is permitted to do so without seeking permission from the owner. These exemptions are in the copyright sections of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended)[]. Many situations allow for Comsure to apply for exemptions. These include 1] Non-commercial research and private study, 2] Criticism, review and reporting of current events, 3] the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is to illustrate a point. 4] no posting is for commercial purposes [payment]. (for a full list of exemptions, please read here]. Concerning the exceptions, Comsure will acknowledge the work of the source author by providing a link to the source material. Comsure claims no ownership of non-Comsure content. The non-Comsure articles posted on the Comsure website are deemed important, relevant, and newsworthy to a Comsure audience (e.g. regulated financial services and professional firms [DNFSBs]). Comsure does not wish to take any credit for the publication, and the publication can be read in full in its original form if you click the articles link that always accompanies the news item. Also, Comsure does not seek any payment for highlighting these important articles. If you want any article removed, Comsure will automatically do so on a reasonable request if you email