Tribunal says FCA overreached on Integrity Claims and cuts fine from £10 to £4 million.

A recent UK tribunal decision has reshaped the regulatory narrative around Banque Havilland, concluding that although individual misconduct occurred, the bank itself did not suffer a systemic or organisational integrity failure.

1. This follows years of scrutiny after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) accused the bank and several former employees of creating an elaborate scheme intended to destabilise Qatar’s economy.
2. In a significant development, a UK judge ruled that “THERE WAS NO ORGANISATIONAL OR SYSTEMIC LACK OF INTEGRITY” at Banque Havilland, now renamed Rangecourt SA, despite the FCA’s allegations that employees had prepared a detailed plan to harm Qatar’s financial stability.
3. The Tribunal upheld the findings of individual misconduct and sustained the personal bans; it reduced the bank’s fine from £10 million to £4 million, reflecting the determination that the institutional culpability was lower than the FCA alleged.
4. This judgment stands in contrast to earlier regulatory findings that had attributed the misconduct directly to the bank.
5. Instead, the tribunal’s assessment suggests the wrongdoing was primarily driven by specific individuals rather than institutional policy or culture.

Comparison Summary: Tribunal Findings vs. FCA Position

Comparison Tribunal Findings vs. FCA Position

1. Overall Assessment of Integrity

FCA Position

• The FCA argued that Banque Havilland (now Rangecourt SA) and key employees acted without integrity, claiming they deliberately designed a scheme to damage Qatar’s economy through manipulative trading strategies.
• The FCA framed the misconduct as institutionally significant, suggesting that the bank as an entity bore responsibility for the plan’s development and its intended presentation to Mubadala Investment Company.
• [fca.org.uk]

Tribunal’s Findings

• The Upper Tribunal took a more nuanced view, concluding that although serious misconduct occurred, “there was no organisational or systemic lack of integrity” within Banque Havilland. Instead, the misconduct was largely attributed to specific individuals rather than systemic corporate intent.
• [lexology.com]

Key Difference:

• FCA: Saw the misconduct as both individual and institutional.
• Tribunal: Rejected institutional culpability, limiting the integrity failure primarily to individual actors.

2. Responsibility for the “Qatar Strategy” Document

FCA Position

• The FCA maintained that the bank created, endorsed, and intended to use a detailed plan (including early drafts titled “Setting fire to the neighbour’s house fund”) to pressure the Qatari riyal and destabilise Qatar’s economy.
• The regulator considered the document part of a deliberate marketing pitch to Mubadala.
• [fca.org.uk]

Tribunal’s Findings

• The Tribunal confirmed the existence of the damaging document and agreed it was improper.
• Multiple employees, particularly Edmund Rowland and Vladimir Bolelyy, were involved and lacked integrity.
• However, the Tribunal did not accept that production of the document reflected a systemic bank policy or top-down directive.
• [assets.pub…ice.gov.uk]

Key Difference:

• FCA: Considered the document as evidence of institutional misconduct.
• Tribunal: Held it was an employee-driven initiative not attributable to systemic bank policy.

3. Attribution of Employee Misconduct to the Bank

FCA Position

• The FCA argued that employee misconduct, especially by senior executives, should be LEGALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE BANK, making the institution accountable for regulatory breaches under UK financial services rules.
• [fca.org.uk]

Tribunal’s Findings

• The Tribunal rejected the FCA’s position on attribution, concluding that even though senior employees acted improperly, these acts could not be treated as representative of the organisation’s integrity.
• The ruling emphasised that the bank overall did not demonstrate a culture or governance failure amounting to systemic integrity issues.

Key Difference:

• FCA: Pushed for institutional responsibility.
• Tribunal: Limited responsibility to individual wrongdoers.

4. Penalties and Sanctions

FCA Position

The FCA originally sought:

• £10 million fine for the bank
• Significant personal fines
• Lifetime bans for key individuals such as Rowland and Bolelyy

Tribunal’s Findings

• While the Tribunal upheld the findings of individual misconduct and sustained the personal bans,
• It reduced the bank’s fine from £10 million to £4 million, reflecting the determination that the institutional culpability was lower than the FCA alleged.

Key Difference:

• FCA: Sought a much higher penalty based on institutional blame.
• Tribunal: Reduced penalty, citing lack of systemic integrity failure.

5. Findings on Employee Conduct (Rowland & Bolelyy)

FCA Position

• The FCA accused Rowland and Bolelyy of acting without integrity, claiming they not only devised the strategy but also lied during the investigation.

Tribunal’s Findings

The Tribunal fully agreed with the FCA regarding the individuals:

• They lacked integrity,
• Lied to both FCA investigators and the court,
• Were instrumental in the misconduct,
• And their bans from financial services remained justified.

Key Difference:

• No difference in substance: both bodies agreed on the seriousness of individual misconduct.

Overall Summary

Conclusion

The FCA and the Upper Tribunal shared broad agreement on the facts of individual wrongdoing but diverged significantly on the interpretation of institutional responsibility.

• The FCA advanced a narrative of both individual and corporate culpability.
• The Tribunal conclusively limited wrongdoing to individuals and reduced the bank’s liability accordingly.

Sources

[funds-europe.com] https://funds-europe.com/tribunal-upholds-fca-sanctions-against-banque-havilland-but-slashes-fine/

[grcreport.com] https://www.grcreport.com/post/tribunal-confirms-sanctions-against-banque-havilland-over-qatari-riyal-scheme

Lexology Pro – Employee liability and bank cooperation lower Havilland FCA fine
https://www.lexology.com/pro/content/employee-liability-and-bank-cooperation-lower-havilland-fca-fine [lexology.com]

UK Tribunal Decision (Full Judgment)

The UK Government publishes the official Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) decision as a PDF:

**Upper Tribunal Decision:

“Rangecourt SA (formerly Banque Havilland SA) & Others v FCA”   3 February 2026**
🔗 PDF link:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6981fbeee833d031a3158f91/Banque_Havilland_and_others_v_The_FCA_Final_Decision.pdf [assets.pub…ice.gov.uk]

This judgment includes:

• Full legal reasoning
• Discussion of employee vs institutional liability
• Findings related to integrity, conduct rules, and penalties
• Appendices containing disputed documents

FCA Public Statements

1. FCA Press Release (Upper Tribunal   3 Feb 2026)

This is the FCA’s primary public statement following the tribunal’s ruling.
🔗 FCA Press Release:
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/upper-tribunal-banque-havilland-plan-harm-qatari-economy [fca.org.uk]

Contains:

• FCA’s summary of the case
• Details of fines and bans
• FCA commentary on misconduct
• Background to the proposed penalties

2. FCA Enforcement Background (Earlier Notice)

Referenced in the tribunal documents:
🔗 FCA Warning Notice (1 Feb 2022)
(Linked from FCA materials, also referenced in Upper Tribunal’s document.) [fca.org.uk]