October 2025:- the Guernsey Court Judges on the appeals of directors connected to the Providence Ponzi fraud

The long-running affair over the Providence Group, found guilty of perpetrating a Ponzi scheme, has been back in court as four men once associated with the collapsed company have appeared in the Court of Appeal (again)

Background: The Providence Group Ponzi Scheme

• The Providence Group operated a fraudulent investment scheme promising high returns from Brazilian factoring operations.
• It collapsed in 2016, causing significant investor losses in Guernsey and beyond.
• The GFSC launched enforcement actions against individuals linked to the scheme, including directors and managers of associated entities.

Key Legal Developments (2021–2024)

March 2021 – GFSC Final Decision

• The GFSC's Senior Decision Maker (SDM), Glen Davis KC, found that Robin Fuller, Adam Tattersall, and Patrick Moroney failed to meet the minimum licensing criteria.
• Sanctions were imposed, including prohibition orders and public statements.  

2023 – Royal Court Judgment

• The individuals appealed the GFSC’s decision to the Royal Court of Guernsey.
• The Bailiff, Sir Richard McMahon, upheld the findings that they failed to meet licensing criteria but ordered reconsideration of the sanctions.
• The judgment was not published publicly due to privacy protections under a now-superseded law.  

January 2024 – Court of Appeal Case [2024] GCA003 https://guernseylegalresources.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?documentid=86298

• A separate appeal involved Ian Domaille, Ian Clarke, and Margaret Hannis, directors of Artemis Trustees Limited.
• The GFSC had imposed financial penalties and prohibition orders for lack of probity and failure to meet licensing criteria.
• The Court of Appeal reviewed the Royal Court’s decision and clarified the interpretation of probity, enforcement powers, and procedural fairness under the Enforcement Powers Law 2020.  

August 2024 – Bailiff’s Judgment  https://guernseylegalresources.gg/unreported-judgments/court-of-appeal/2024/2024-gca083/

• The Bailiff set aside specific findings against Fuller, Tattersall, Moroney, and Dewsnip but upheld others.
• He allowed appeals against all sanctions for Fuller, Tattersall, and Moroney.
• Dewsnip’s appeal succeeded only in relation to the public statement.
• The case was remitted to the GFSC for reconsideration of sanctions.  

Privacy Requests Denied

• The appellants sought privacy orders for their appeals in 2024 and 2025.
• The Guernsey courts refused, citing public interest and the need for transparency in regulatory enforcement.

The 2025 Guernsey Court of Appeal judgment

• The 2025 Guernsey Court of Appeal judgment concerning the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC) and the collapse of the Providence Group Ponzi scheme is a landmark decision that clarifies key aspects of regulatory enforcement, procedural fairness, and human rights compliance under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
• The GFSC had imposed sanctions on several individuals, Robin Fuller, Adam Tattersall, Patrick Moroney, and Steve Dewsnip, for failing to meet the minimum licensing criteria in connection with their roles in companies linked to the fraudulent Providence scheme.

 Key Outcomes of the Court of Appeal Judgment (6 October 2025)

1. Validation of GFSC’s Enforcement Process
   1. The Court upheld the procedural integrity of the GFSC’s enforcement regime.
   2. It confirmed that the GFSC’s processes are compliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial.  
2. Mixed Findings on Wrongdoing
   1. The Court confirmed several findings of wrongdoing made initially by the GFSC’s Senior Decision Maker (SDM).
   2. However, it also asked the Royal Court to reconsider some aspects of its earlier judgment, suggesting that specific findings and sanctions may need to be reassessed.  
3. Remittal for Further Review
   1. The Court remitted key issues back to:
      1. The Royal Court for reconsideration of findings.
      2. The GFSC for potential reassessment of sanctions, depending on the Royal Court’s conclusions.
4. Sanctions Appeals
   1. The appeals of Robin Fuller, Adam Tattersall, and Patrick Moroney were allowed in respect of the sanctions imposed on them.
   2. Steve Dewsnip’s appeal succeeded only in relation to the public statement issued by the GFSC.
5. Transparency and Public Interest
   1. The Court refused privacy orders, affirming that the appeals should be heard in public due to the public interest in regulatory transparency.  

Lessons and Implications

• Regulatory bodies must ensure procedural fairness and transparency in enforcement.
• Directors and license holders are reminded of the importance of meeting minimum licensing criteria and maintaining ethical standards.
• The case sets a precedent for judicial oversight of regulatory decisions in Guernsey and potentially other jurisdictions.

Longer read…..

2021-2024

• The Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the GFSC”) investigated the entities within the Providence Group, which it regulated, and specific individuals involved in the management of those entities.
• The GFSC appointed a Senior Decision Maker, Glen Davis QC (“the SDM”).
• On 24 March 2021, the SDM issued a decision which imposed sanctions, inter alia, on
• Mr Fuller, Mr Tattersall and Mr Moroney (“the Respondents”) and a Mr Dewsnip. 
• On 4 March 2021,
• A Senior Decision Maker, Glen Davis (then QC, now KC) (the SDM), appointed on behalf of the Respondent, rendered his Final Decision, finding that the Appellants did not meet the minimum criteria for licensing and imposing sanctions on them.
• On 14 August 2024,
• following an appeal hearing held in private, the Bailiff dismissed the appeals of the Appellants (save in respect of their appeals against sanctions). 
• The Bailiff ordered that his judgment should not be published beyond the parties and their legal advisers. 
• In a judgment handed down on 14 August 2024, the Bailiff
• Set aside specific findings which the GFSC had made against each of those individuals but upheld other findings.
• Allowed the appeals of
• Mr Fuller, Mr Tattersall and Mr Moroney against all of the sanctions imposed on each of them.
• Mr Dewsnip’s appeal so far as concerned the public statement.
• Remitted the case to the GFSC for reconsideration of the sanctions imposed in light of his findings. 
• Read the  [2024]GCA083 - R. Fuller and A. Tattersall and P. Maroney v Guernsey Financial Services Commission - 04 - December - 2024
• https://guernseylegalresources.gg/unreported-judgments/court-of-appeal/2024/2024-gca083/

2025 Appeals

• The GFSC appealed the Bailiff’s decision to this 2025 Court.
• Mr Fuller, Mr Tattersall and Mr Moroney (“the Respondents”) cross-appealed.

Public interest disclosures

• The proceedings in the Royal Court took place in private, and the Bailiff ordered that his judgment should not be published.
• However, by a decision of this Court (Montgomery P, Le Cocq and Furness JJA) [2024] GCA083, the Court rejected an application for privacy orders in relation to this appeal.
• That judgment concluded that no compelling case for privacy in relation to the appeal had been made out and that it was in the public interest that this Court sit in public to hear this appeal and publish its judgment. 

This is the judgment of the Court on the GFSC’s appeal and the Respondents’ cross-appeals.

• The appeal and cross-appeals have raised a large number of issues.
• The conclusions on those issues in paragraphs 78 and 475  
•  https://www.guernseylegalresources.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?documentid=87890

The judgment says

• We agree with the Bailiff that the Royal Court requires remitting the case to the GFSC for reconsideration of the sanctions imposed in light of the outcome of the appellate process, including the decision of this Court.
• However, there are certain matters which the Royal Court will require to address before the case is remitted back to the GFSC, and we identify these at paragraphs 79 and 476.

Judgment in the Court of Appeal - 6th October 2025

The GFSC says

1. The Commission welcomes this judgment from the Court of Appeal on the Providence matter. 
2. In it, the Court of Appeal highlights and confirms several aspects of the wrongdoing that our Senior Decision Maker determined initially to have taken place.
3. Since that original decision, we have vigorously defended our Senior Decision Maker's findings of wrongdoing against challenges from several parties, intending to put ourselves in a position where we were legally allowed to publish them.  
4. We are as conscious as anyone of the length of time this matter has been going on, but continue to view this process as entirely necessary to expose to the public some of the wrongdoing which took place in connection with this fraudulent Ponzi scheme run by Providence in the middle of the last decade. 
5. Whilst we cannot predict the future, this Court of Appeal judgment will provide a strong legal foundation for the eventual conclusion of this matter.
6. Since we started dealing with the failings within the Providence entities more than a decade ago, in conjunction with our colleagues at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the USA, we have made numerous improvements to our supervisory regime.
7. However, we must stress that all supervisory regimes depend to a great degree on interacting with people who tell the truth.
8. When key people - confining this observation to the former Providence directors currently serving long prison terms in the United States for this media release - turn out to be intent on criminal conduct, supervision is always going to struggle.
9. The costs of running a supervisory system which was foolproof in terms of detecting and stopping such people before they committed fraud would be economically extreme for any jurisdiction.
10. In Guernsey, we are prosperous to a great degree because we have a high-trust society with common cultural values and a shared understanding of right and wrong.
11. This makes it possible to do beneficial things which deliver societal goods - things which it would be impractical and uneconomic to do in a low-trust society which lacked such a common understanding.
12. At the Commission, whilst seeking to avoid being naively trusting, we will continue to supervise on the basis that the people with whom we interact are generally honest and decent.

With this judgment, the Court of Appeal:

1. Helpfully puts several of the disputed instances of wrongdoing into the public domain for the first time;
2. Supports the Commission's process and upholds the reasoning of our Senior Decision Maker in many instances where other parties had fought to overturn or discredit him;
3. Asks the Royal Court to think again about some matters in the light of the Court of Appeal’s review of the Royal Court's initial judgment;
4. Possibly asks the Commission to do some further work, dependent on the outcome of the additional work it has requested the Court of Royal to do;
5. Sets out several insights for company directors as to what good and less good conduct looks like in less-than-ideal circumstances; and
6. Provides a clear explanation as to why the processes that are adopted by the Commission, under the laws passed by the States, to deal with Enforcement matters are compliant with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 Sources

• https://www.gfsc.gg/news/judgment-court-appeal-0

The judgement is below

• https://www.guernseylegalresources.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?documentid=87890

Other sources

• 2024 https://guernseylegalresources.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?documentid=86298
• https://www.comsuregroup.com/news/guernsey-court-refuses-providence-ponzi-scheme-directors-a-privacy-request-for-their-appeal/
• https://guernseypress.com/news/2025/02/24/appeal-made-by-three-facing-sanctions-for-work-with-providence/