David Rowland is fighting back after his bank was fined £10m for allegedly plotting to undermine Qatar’s currency in a case which portrays his fears that his phone was being hacked by agents of the country.
Banque Havilland, which is headquartered in Luxembourg, is appealing against the penalty imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Edmund Rowland - David's son and the bank’s former London branch CEO - was fined £352,000 and is also appealing; David Weller, a former London branch senior manager,was fined £54,000; and Valdimir Bolelyy, a former London branch employee, was fined £14,200 and has also lodged an appeal.
All three have been banned from working in financial services.
David Rowland himself was not subject to any action, but has third party status after being identified in all the decision notices - he will appeal against his portrayal in those to the Upper Tribunal.
The FCA ruled that between September and November 2017, Banque Havilland “acted without integrity” by creating and disseminating a document which contained manipulative trading strategies aimed at creating a false or misleading impression as to the market in, or the price of, Qatari bonds.
The objective, it said, was to devalue the Qatari Riyal and break its peg to the US Dollar, thereby harming the economy of Qatar.
“Banque Havilland intended to present the document to representatives of countries it considered might have reasons to want to put economic pressure on Qatar, including the United Arab Emirates, as a way of marketing its services.”
The strategy was not implemented, the FCA said.
Therese Chambers, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said: “Banque Havilland’s conduct actively encouraged the commission of financial crime, providing ideas for manipulative trading to someone it saw as having the political motivation to be potentially interested in such ideas. It barely needs stating, but such conduct is completely unacceptable."
Pictured: Therese Chambers, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA.
“The misconduct of Mr Edmund Rowland and Mr Boleyy was deliberate. Mr Weller claimed to have believed that the other two were joking around but as a senior manager he behaved recklessly. There was an obvious risk of impropriety and he willingly took that risk without seeking any assurances that things would go no further.”
David Rowland owns Havilland Hall, the largest privately owned estate in Guernsey.
In his representations about the case he addressed telephone calls with his son on the 12,13 and 19 October 2017, maintaining he was not aware of contents of the presentation which contained the trading strategy.
‘Throughout these telephone calls David Rowland and Mr Rowland were concerned about their communications being hacked by agents of Qatar. The presentation was not discussed; David Rowland’s concerns related to a document regarding the Financial Institution [which was being established through a partnership of an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund and the Rowland family] and whether his phone had been hacked. They therefore talk about what he and Mr Rowland should do with their phones and their email addresses. The telephone calls were unguarded conversations between father and son and do not show any attempt at a cover-up.”
A spokesman for Banque Havilland said: “The bank is disappointed in the decision reached by the FCA and does not accept that it is directly liable for the actions of the individuals implicated in the criticised activity, who have long since left the bank.
“After careful consideration, the bank has referred the FCA’s decision to the Upper Tribunal, which is an independent Court, to determine the matter.
“The bank has taken measures to ensure that any consequences will not significantly affect the bank’s financial position. The bank is not subject to any other action arising from these events and is fully focused on delivering its agreed strategy for customers.”
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.