Page 40 - Futr Investment Proposal
P. 40
40
Andrew Wilkin’s FCA Fine
Overview of the fine
In August 2015 Andrew Wilkins was be received and held with third party During the enforcement process
fined by the FCA whilst serving as a receiving agents until the tranche issue Andrew admitted that he had lacked
Director of Catalyst Investment Group was ready. due care, skill and diligence in respect
which he did between Oct 2007 and of the letter and agreed that a fine
March 2010. Catalyst promoted an The FCA took action against Catalyst would be a reasonable penalty.
asset-backed bond issued by Arm Directors and its compliance officer in
Asset Backed Securities based in relation to Catalyst’s promotion of In August 2013, the FCA tried to fine
Luxembourg. The bond programme ARM and related communications to Andrew £100,000 and prohibit him
was registered with the Irish Stock the IFAs that sold the bonds. The FCA from undertaking significant influence
Exchange and traded on its regulated stated that 1) Catalyst allowed functions in FCA regulated firms (i.e.
market. During Andrew’s time at the investors to transfer funds after CF1 role). He referred the FCA’s
company there was a legal change in November 2009 and 2) Catalyst decision to the Upper Tribunal (Tax &
Lux and it became necessary for Arm to provided misleading information about Chancery Chamber) The Tribunal
register for a licence with the local ARM’s licence position in a letter to rejected the allegation that he was not
regulator, the CSSF. Catalyst was IFAs in December 2009. The letter fit and proper on any basis alleged by
informed by Arm’s legal team that they stated that ARM was seeking a CSSF the FCA. Specifically it rejected the
could continue to receive funds and licence and was not going to issue FCA’s argument that he had acted
Catalyst could continue to promote another tranche until it was regulated, recklessly and without integrity. It also
while the application was in process. when it should have said that ARM was rejected the FCA’s argument that he
seeking a CSSF licence and was not lacked competence, noting that a
In Nov 2009 the CSSF requested Arm “permitted” to issue its next tranche number of steps he took at the time
pause its issuance of tranches pending until it had received it. Although the demonstrated my concern for investors
a license decision. Again Catalyst took letter was written by Catalyst’s and their funds. The Tribunal
legal advice and even though ARM compliance officer and signed by a overturned the ban and reduced the
could not issue tranches until it was senior director, Andrew did have sight fine to £50,000.
regulated, that regulation was of it and should not have allowed it to
imminent and funds could continue to be sent to IFAs in that form.
