1

FINAL NOTICE

ACTION

1.
For the reasons set out in this Final Notice, the Authority hereby takes the following
action against Mr Grant.

2.
The Authority gave Mr Grant the Decision Notice, which notified Mr Grant that, for
the reasons given below and pursuant to section 56 of the Act, the Authority had
decided to make an order prohibiting him from performing any function in relation
to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or
exempt professional firm.

3.
Mr Grant has not referred the matter to the Tribunal within 28 days of the date on
which the Decision Notice was given to him.

4.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out below, the Authority hereby makes an order
pursuant to section 56 of the Act prohibiting Mr Grant from performing any function
in relation to any regulated activity carried on by any authorised person, exempt
person or exempt professional firm. The Prohibition Order takes effect from 12
February 2020.

DEFINITIONS

5.
The definitions below are used in this Final Notice (and in the Annex):

“the Act” means the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;

“the Authority” means the Financial Conduct Authority;

“the Decision Notice” means the Decision Notice issued to Mr Grant on 17 December
2019;

“EG” means the Authority’s Enforcement Guide;

2

“FIT” means the Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons and specified significant-
harm functions sourcebook;

“Mr Grant” means Paul Michael Grant;

“the Handbook” means the Authority’s Handbook of rules and guidance;

“the Tribunal” means the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber); and

“the Warning Notice” means the Warning Notice issued to Mr Grant on 28 November
2019.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

6.
The statutory and regulatory provisions relevant to this Final Notice are set out in
the Annex.


SUMMARY OF THE REASONS

7.
The Authority has concluded, on the basis of the facts and matters and conclusions
described in the Warning Notice, and in the Decision Notice, that Mr Grant is not a
fit and proper person to perform any function in relation to any regulated activity
carried on by any authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm,
as his conduct demonstrates a clear and serious lack of honesty, integrity and
reputation. Specifically, Mr Grant:

(a) was convicted on 18 October 2018, of 11 counts of fraud by abuse of position

and three counts of theft; and


(b) was sentenced on 11 January 2019 to five years and six months imprisonment.

FACTS AND MATTERS RELIED ON

8.
Between 2003 and 2016 Mr Grant held various controlled functions at three
authorised firms. He ceased to be approved on 3 May 2016, shortly after the police
had been alerted to his offending.


9.
On 18 October 2018, Mr Grant entered guilty pleas at Croydon Magistrates Court
to 11 counts of fraud by abuse of position and three counts of theft. On 11 January
2019, Mr Grant was sentenced at the Crown Court at Croydon to 5 years and six
months imprisonment. Mr Grant’s offences were committed when he was approved
by the Authority to perform controlled functions and in fact involved the abuse of
his position as a financial advisor.

10.
In his sentencing remarks, HHJ Flahive commented on the features of Mr Grant’s
case. Mr Grant dishonestly persuaded clients, some of whom were vulnerable, to
invest their money with him. Instead of putting these funds into investments he
paid it into his personal bank accounts, spending approximately £2.1 million over
the prolonged period of his offending. Mr Grant paid small amounts back, deceiving
his victims into thinking that these sums were profits on their non-existent
investments.

3

11.
In sentencing, HHJ Flahive stated that Mr Grant ‘committed fraud, while occupying
a position, that of a financial advisor, in which you were expected to safeguard, or
not to act against the financial interest of your various clients. You have dishonestly
abused your position, intending to make a gain for yourself… you abused the trust
of many, many who though they were friends of yours... after significant planning
and over a significant number of years, with a large number of victims, you have
deliberately targeted them so that they could be deprived of their money. This
deliberate targeting of people, some of whom are vulnerable, and it strikes me in
hearing the way in which you were acting that some of those were deliberately
targeted because of their vulnerability.’


DECISION MAKER

12.
The decision which gave rise to the obligation to give this Final Notice was made
by the Regulatory Decisions Committee.

IMPORTANT

13.
This Final Notice is given to Mr Grant in accordance with section 390 of the Act.

Publicity

14.
The Authority must publish such information about which this Final Notice relates
as the Authority considers appropriate. The information may be published in such
manner as the Authority considers appropriate. However, the Authority may not
publish information if such information would, in the opinion of the Authority, be
unfair to Mr Grant or prejudicial to the interests of consumers.


15.
The Authority intends to publish such information about the matter to which this
Final Notice relates as it considers appropriate.


Authority Contact

16.
For more information concerning this matter generally, Mr Grant should contact
Antonella Pavone at the Authority (direct line: 0207 066 5222).

Martin Butcher
Enforcement and Market Oversight Division






ANNEX

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS


1.
The Authority’s operational objectives include securing an appropriate degree of
protection for consumers (section 1C of the Act) and protecting and enhancing the
integrity of the UK financial system (section 1D of the Act).

2.
Section 56(1) of the Act provides:

“The [Authority] may make a prohibition order if it appears to it that an individual
is not a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a regulated activity
carried on by –

(a) an authorised person,

(b) a person who is an exempt person in relation to that activity, or

(c) a person to whom, as a result of Part 20, the general prohibition does not
apply in relation to that activity.”

RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS

3.
In exercising its power to make a prohibition order, the Authority must have regard
to guidance published in the Handbook and in regulatory guides, such as EG. The
relevant main considerations in relation to the action specified above are set out
below.

The Enforcement Guide

4.
The Authority’s policy in relation to exercising its power to issue a prohibition order
is set out in EG.

5.
EG 9.1 explains the purpose of prohibition orders in relation to the Authority’s
statutory objectives.

6.
EG 9.2 sets out the Authority’s general policy on making prohibition orders. In
particular:

(a)
EG 9.2.1 states that the Authority will consider all relevant circumstances,
including whether enforcement action has been taken against the individual
by other enforcement agencies, in deciding whether to make a prohibition
order;


(b)
EG 9.2.2 states that the Authority has the power to make a range of
prohibition orders depending on the circumstances of each case; and

(c)
EG 9.2.3 states that the scope of a prohibition order will depend on, amongst
other things, the reasons why the individual is not fit and proper and the
severity of risk he poses to consumers or the market generally.

5

7.
EG 9.5.1 states that where the Authority is considering whether to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider the severity of the risk posed by the individual and may prohibit him
where it considers that it is appropriate to achieve one or more of the Authority’s
statutory objectives.

8.
EG 9.5.2 provides that, when considering whether to exercise its power to make a
prohibition order against someone who is not an approved person, the Authority
will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case. These may include, but are
not limited to, the factors set out in EG 9.3.2. Those factors include: whether the
individual is fit and proper to perform functions in relation to regulated activities
(noting the criteria set out in FIT 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3); the relevance and materiality
of any matters indicating unfitness; the length of time since the occurrence of any
matters indicating unfitness; and the severity of the risk which the individual poses
to consumers and to confidence in the financial system.

Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons

9.
The Authority has issued guidance on the fitness and propriety of individuals in FIT.

10.
FIT 1.3.1BG(1) states that the most important considerations when assessing the
fitness and propriety of a person to perform a controlled function include that
person’s honesty, integrity and reputation.

11.
FIT 2.1.1G states that in determining a person’s honesty, integrity and reputation,
the Authority will have regard to all relevant matters including, but not limited to,
those set out in FIT 2.1.3G. It notes, amongst other things and by way of example,
that:

“… conviction for a criminal offence will not automatically mean an application will
be rejected. The [Authority] treats each candidate’s application on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the seriousness of, and the circumstances surrounding,
the offence, the explanation offered by the convicted person, the relevance of the
offence to the proposed role, the passage of time since the offence was committed
and evidence of the individual’s rehabilitation.”


12.
FIT 2.1.3G(1) states that the matters referred to in FIT 2.1.1G include, but are not
limited to, whether a person has been convicted of any criminal offence, noting
that particular consideration will be given to certain offences including those of
dishonesty, fraud and financial crime (amongst other things).