Following contested proceedings, the Upper Tribunal has found that Andrew Tinney, the former Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Barclays Wealth and Investment Management (Barclays Wealth), breached his obligation as an approved person to act with integrity.
Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said: ‘Senior management must be held to high standards of integrity which is the fundamental cornerstone of good conduct in trusted markets. Mr Tinney failed to act with integrity in one telling instance which is enough to justify this censure.’
In March 2012, Mr Tinney received a document which contained critical findings about the culture within Barclays Wealth’s US branch, Barclays Wealth Americas. Subsequently, the Chairman of Barclays Bank plc (of which Barclays Wealth is a division) received an anonymous email alleging that “a Wealth cultural audit report” had been suppressed. Mr Tinney assisted in drafting a response to this allegation.
Reckless
The substantive hearing took place in January 2018. The Upper Tribunal found that Mr Tinney was reckless in giving the impression that the document did not exist. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal found that Mr Tinney’s conduct failed to meet the required standard of integrity. The FCA also alleged that Mr Tinney made false or misleading statements to his colleagues in a response to the US Federal Reserve Bank of New York in November 2012 about the same document. The Upper Tribunal did not uphold this allegation.
Misleading statement
The Upper Tribunal also found that, following these events, Mr Tinney made a misleading statement to his professional regulator (the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) concerning the nature of his conduct. However, the Upper Tribunal did not uphold the separate allegation that Mr Tinney had misled the FCA.
Following a separate hearing on sanctions in March 2019, the Upper Tribunal determined that the appropriate sanction was for the FCA to publish a statement of Mr Tinney’s misconduct (a public censure) and did not uphold the FCA’s submission that a breach of the obligation to act with integrity by a senior manager merited a prohibition order in this case. The FCA has, accordingly, published a Final Notice.
Source: https://www.fca.org.uk
