Markos Markou v The Financial Conduct Authority

Markos Markou v The Financial Conduct Authority

The Tribunal found the Applicant did not act recklessly or without integrity. While he failed to prevent FSE's mortgage advisors from conducting regulated business without PII after 11 May 2017 and after 10 July 2017, these failures were not reckless, did not amount to a lack of integrity, and did not breach...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Markos Markou; Respondent: Financial Conduct Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Regulatory/disciplinary Reference (financial Services) / Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) Final Judgment
Outcome
Reference allowed. Authority's decisions set aside/remitted.
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance (pii), Mortgage Intermediaries, Regulatory Sanctions, Fit and Proper Person Test, Statements of Principle (integrity, Skill, Care and Diligence), Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process
Financial Regulation Administrative Law Professional Indemnity Insurance (pii) Mortgage Intermediaries Regulatory Sanctions Fit and Proper Person Test Statements of Principle (integrity, Skill, Care and Diligence) Issue Estoppel +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Markos Markou

Applicant

Financial Conduct Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Regulatory/disciplinary Reference (financial Services) / Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant acted recklessly and without integrity in failing to maintain compliant regulated mortgage business at FSE during the Relevant Period.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant failed to establish, maintain and enforce effective financial crime systems and controls, particularly regarding mortgage fraud.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant failed to supervise mortgage advisors and prevent regulated business without PII after 11 May 2017 and after 10 July 2017.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the Applicant did not act recklessly or without integrity. While he failed to prevent FSE's mortgage advisors from conducting regulated business without PII after 11 May 2017 and after 10 July 2017, these failures were not reckless, did not amount to a lack of integrity, and did not breach Statement of Principle 1. The Authority was not estopped or barred from raising the allegations, but the allegations regarding transparency to the Tribunal were outside the subject matter of the reference. No financial penalty or prohibition order was justified on the facts found.

Court Disposition

Reference allowed. Authority's decisions set aside/remitted.

Orders

  • No financial penalty to be imposed on the Applicant.
  • Authority to reconsider withdrawal of approval and prohibition order in light of Tribunal's findings, including whether any breach of Statement of Principle 2 occurred, and to take into account all mitigation identified.