The Financial Conduct Authority v Karen Ferreira

The Financial Conduct Authority v Karen Ferreira

To be 'knowingly concerned' in a contravention under section 382 FSMA, a person must have knowledge of the facts that make the act a contravention, including knowledge that the communication was not approved by an authorised person or otherwise exempt. Mere knowledge of the communication itself is insufficient.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Financial Conduct Authority; Defendant/appellant: Karen Ferreira
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Section 382 FSMA, Section 21 FSMA, Knowing Concern in Contravention, Director Liability, Restitution Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant/respondent

Karen Ferreira

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'knowingly concerned' in section 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000?
  2. 2 Does liability under section 382 require knowledge that the relevant communication was not approved by an authorised person or only knowledge of the facts in section 21(1)?

Ratio Decidendi

To be 'knowingly concerned' in a contravention under section 382 FSMA, a person must have knowledge of the facts that make the act a contravention, including knowledge that the communication was not approved by an authorised person or otherwise exempt. Mere knowledge of the communication itself is insufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. The High Court's order against Ms. Ferreira under section 382 FSMA is set aside.