GFSC fines left pending

Tuesday 07 November 2023

Punishments the GFSC gave to one person and a business have been suspended until an appeal is heard in each of their cases, following a contested hearing in the Royal Court.

The individual was banned from acting as a director of companies and both he and the business were fined hundreds of thousands of pounds by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission.

That decision was made previously, with the GFSC maintaining it's the right resolution. 

It tried to stop the Court suspending the punishments but that was overruled with a stay imposed until the appeal can be heard in full. A date has not yet been set for that.

Pictured: The first stage of a challenge against a GFSC decision was heard by Guernsey's Deputy Bailiff.

The First and Second Appellant (the individual and the business respectively) both asked the Royal Court to hear their appeals against the GFSC's decisions.

The First had been sanctioned by the Commission which means he is prohibited from acting under The Regulations of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors for ten years and both were fined £150,000 and £300,000 respectively. 

In October, the Deputy Bailiff heard why both wanted those punishments stayed until they were able to appeal through the courts.

The GFSC opposed that stay - which it has acknowledged is "an unusual exception to, rather than a change in, our more habitual approach of being prepared to entertain stays on sanctions when an individual or entity is excercising his, her or its statutory rights to appeal a decision".

Pictured: The Guernsey Financial Services Commission oversees the legal side of the industry.

The individual said that the sanction prevented him from earning a living while his appeal is being heard, which in turn would mean he was unable to pay the fine imposed on him if it were upheld.

The sanction imposed on the business would also prevent it from earning an income, also making it difficult to pay the fine, so both asked for the punishments to be stayed pending appeal. 

The Deputy Bailiff agreed and said the punishments would be suspended meaning they would not be enforced until after the appeal is heard, if it is lost. 

If the appeal is successful then the punishments would not be imposed.

In its submissions to the Court, the Commission said it noted the findings of the Deputy Bailiff, "which recognises the Commission’s role in having regard to protecting the public and the reputation of the Bailiwick as a finance centre.

"The Commission will await, following a further fuller hearing, a decision from the Royal Court as to whether the appellants’ substantial appeal against the Senior Decision Maker’s decision in this case is successful."

A date has not been confirmed yet for the appeal hearing.