The
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decision
Andrew Tinney v The Financial Conduct Authority [2019] UKUT 0227 (TCC), given in May this year, has now been published: see
here. It appears on the same day as the FCA's publication of its final notice in the case: see
here (
pdf). The Tribunal found that Mr Tinney had acted without integrity - in breach of (what is now)
APER Statement of Principle 1 - and that the appropriate sanction was public censure. The Tribunal decision is noteworthy because of the discussion it contains concerning the meaning of integrity. The Tribunal observed (para. [13]):
A lack of integrity does not necessarily equate to dishonesty. While a person who acts dishonestly is obviously also acting without integrity, a person may lack integrity without being dishonest. One example of a lack of integrity not involving dishonesty is recklessness as to the truth of statements made to others who will or may rely on them or wilful disregard of information contradicting the truth of such statements".
No comments:
Post a Comment