UK Financial Conduct Authority - Enforcement Regulatory Disclosure Review: Outcome

Following a review, we have improved our disclosure processes in regulatory enforcement cases.

In Seiler and others v FCA [2023] UKUT 00133, the Upper Tribunal recommended that we should review certain elements of the disclosure process in regulatory enforcement cases. This relates to disclosure of evidence as part of any regulatory case.

We have completed the review and have made a number of changes to our processes.

Most significantly, we are:

taking a broader approach to disclosure which will mean our review of documents is not focused only on identifying potentially undermining material
enhancing our existing training on disclosure to include additional specialist training for those managing and overseeing disclosure exercises
providing additional training for staff and more detailed guidance on quality assurance
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of staff and managers involved in disclosure, and
giving greater emphasis to the importance of disclosure in measuring and rewarding staff performance

We are required to disclose all documents on which we rely to build regulatory enforcement cases, as well as any other material which in our opinion might undermine our decision to take action.

Under our new broader approach, we will disclose all material that is relevant to the facts of the matter, save where it is disproportionate, not in the public interest, or otherwise inappropriate to do so. This will include all material that is potentially undermining as well as supportive material. Disclosure reviews will be aimed at identifying all the relevant material and will not be focused on only looking for potentially undermining material. This will reduce the risk that we mistakenly fail to disclose a document.

Overall, the aim of our changes is to improve the quality of our disclosure by providing greater support for case teams.

We will closely monitor the effectiveness of the changes we are making, and will conduct a further review in approximately 12 months’ time to assess whether we should take further steps to improve our processes.