Print Article

London Capital & Finance scandal: How the gun-shy regulator was left shooting blanks


Two years before London Capital & Finance collapsed into administration, the Financial Conduct Authority received a tip-off about the minibond firm.

An anonymous source sent a letter to the Metropolitan Police and copied it to an individual at the City regulator in January 2017 to warn that LCF had raised £30 million and “have just ‘lent’ the money to related companies controlled by the main players”. The source wrote: “Hopefully between you things will happen.”

While the FCA contacted the detective constable at the Met who had also received the letter, the watchdog subsequently closed the matter.

This turned out to be one of a number of warnings received by the FCA that went unheeded. These missed opportunities and the failures that led to them were catalogued in devastating detail by Dame Elizabeth Gloster in her report into the regulator’s handling of the LCF scandal, which was published on Thursday.

The FCA’s slowness to take action meant 11,625 savers had poured £237 million into the toxic minibonds sold by LCF by the time of its administration in January last year. A Serious Fraud Office investigation into LCF is under way.

Dame Elizabeth’s review is excoriating in its criticism of the FCA. Many in the City and beyond will be asking whether the regulator is up to the task of tackling financial crime and investment scams.

  • “It raises very important questions about the fitness of the regulator,” Mel Stride, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons treasury select committee, said.

Thomas Donegan, a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said that what was

  • “Really astonishing is the express tip-offs which were ignored” by the regulator.

Mr Donegan, who focuses on financial regulation, has taken a special interest in LCF because a relative lost money in the scandal. He is working pro bono on a judicial review against the decision by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme not to make pay-outs to many LCF investors.

Dame Elizabeth’s investigation identified numerous examples where the FCA failed to appreciate “red flags” about LCF.

These included at least 15 calls by one individual alone between July 2016 and February 2018 who raised concerns about potential fraud. The report by Dame Elizabeth concluded that the watchdog’s handling of information from third parties about LCF was “wholly deficient”.

Simon Morris, a financial services partner at the law firm CMS, called the LCF review “a real shocker”, adding:

  • “It was a very, very disappointing read because it showed really numbskull regulation.” Yet he argued that the FCA, which oversees about 60,000 financial businesses in total, is nevertheless fit for purpose.
  • “The FCA’s sweet spot is regulating large firms that are 100 percent within the rules and with whom it has a relationship,” Mr Morris said.

  • “You’ve got an enormous ecosystem of small firms that can cause enormous damage and they’re inherently more difficult to regulate. Each of them will have an idiosyncratic business model and different marketing methods.”

Dame Elizabeth’s report also shed light on the lack of training among some FCA staff.

Mr Donegan said that an issue for the regulator was high staff turnover. The authority cannot compete with City firms on pay and many banks want to hire people who have the regulator on their CVs for their compliance departments.

Read more at The Times


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