After a record-breaking year of fines, the FCA has had a relatively quiet start to 2025. We analyse the nature of the breaches behind penalties dished out in the first few months of the year.
With nearly half the year behind us, the FCA has issued a total of £13m if we include Odey Asset Management's provisional fine for lack of integrity. Most of the FCA fine amount goes towards a single milestone penalty against a Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE).
With patterns of failures related to financial crime and misconduct emerging, it is more important than ever for staff, including senior management, to engage in FCA compliance training. The consequences of inadequate advice or misleading information in financial services can be detrimental, resulting in heavyweight penalties.
Top FCA fines in 2025
- Barclays Bank plc - £39.3m fine
- Monzo Bank Limited - £21m fine
- The London Metal Exchange (LME) - £9.2m fine
- Barclays Bank UK plc - £3m fine
- Mako Financial Markets Partnership LLP - £1.6m fine
- James Edward Staley - £1.1m fine
- Sigma Broking Limited - £1m fine
- Jean-Noel Alba - £1m fine
- Toni Fox - £567k fine
- David Brian Price - £465k fine
- Arian Financial LLP - £288k fine
- Diego Urra - £223k fine
- Jorge Lopez Gonzalez - £100k fine
- Infinox Capital Limited - £99k fine
- Poojan Sheth - £57k fine
- Markos Theodosi Markou - £10k fine
We continuously track the largest Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fines and identify trends in breaching FCA rules year on year.
What are the biggest FCA fines 2025 in detail
Here is a breakdown of the most significant penalties of the year and the reasons behind them.
1. Barclays Bank plc (fined £39.3m)
Breach of Principle 2 (skill, care and diligence) of the Authority’s Principles for Businesses
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined Barclays Bank PLC £39.3 million for serious failures in managing money laundering risks linked to its client, Stunt & Co.
Barclays failed to collect sufficient information when the relationship began and did not carry out adequate ongoing monitoring. Within just over a year, Stunt & Co received £46.8 million from Fowler Oldfield, a large-scale money laundering operation.
Despite being alerted by law enforcement to suspicious activity involving Fowler Oldfield, and even after police raids on both firms, Barclays did not properly assess the risks. The bank only reviewed its exposure after learning that the FCA was prosecuting NatWest for its dealings with Fowler Oldfield.
By continuing to provide banking services to Stunt & Co, Barclays enabled the movement of funds tied to financial crime.
2. Monzo Bank Limited (fined £21m)
Breaches of PRIN 3 and s.55L of FSMA
The FCA has fined Monzo Bank £21.1 million for failing to maintain adequate financial crime controls between 2018 and 2020.
As Monzo grew rapidly, it fell short on customer checks, risk assessments, and transaction monitoring. The bank even accepted implausible information, failed to identify high-risk customers and PEPs, and opened over 34,000 high-risk accounts despite restrictions.
Monzo settled early, reducing the fine from over £30m. The bank has since invested heavily in strengthening its compliance systems.
"Banks are a vital line of defence in the collective fight against financial crime. They must have the systems in place to prevent the flow of ill-gotten gains into the financial system. Monzo fell far short of what we, and society, expect."
3. The London Metal Exchange (LME) (fined £9.2m)
Breaches of REC 2.5.1 paragraph 3(1), 3(2)(h) and Article 18(3)(a),(4) of MiFID RTS 7
The UK FCA issued a £9.24 million fine to the London Metal Exchange (LME) for serious failings in its systems and controls during a period of extreme market volatility in March 2022. This is the FCA's first enforcement action against an RIE and underscores the importance of robust governance and crisis preparedness in regulated financial markets.
The fine follows the LME's mishandling of unprecedented price surges in nickel futures, which more than tripled in value between 4 and 8 March 2022. The exchange's response was marred by weak escalation processes, inadequate real-time monitoring, and poorly managed price control mechanisms. The LME suspended its nickel market for eight days and cancelled trades from 8 March without sufficient oversight from senior management. Staff lacked the training to recognise market disorder, and communication protocols failed to escalate critical issues appropriately.
The FCA's investigation found the LME in breach of the Recognised Investment Exchanges sourcebook and MiFID RTS 7 standards. While the LME had taken corrective steps since the incident, including commissioning an independent review, its prior provision of inaccurate information aggravated the situation. The penalty was calculated based on the seriousness of the breach, adjusted for mitigation and early settlement.
4. Barclays Bank UK plc (fined £3m fine)
Breaches of Principle 3 and SYSC 6.1.1R
Barclays Bank UK PLC failed to carry out adequate checks before opening a client money account for WealthTek, exposing customers to money laundering and misappropriation risks.
A simple review of the FCA’s Financial Services Register would have shown that WealthTek was not authorised to hold client money. Despite this, clients went on to deposit £34 million into the account.
Barclays has agreed to make a voluntary payment of £6.3 million to WealthTek clients who suffered losses.
Separately, in December 2024, the FCA charged WealthTek’s principal partner with multiple offences, including fraud and money laundering.
5. Mako Financial Markets Partnership LLP (fined £1.6m)
Breaches of PRIN 2 and PRIN 3
The FCA has fined Mako Financial Markets Partnership £1.66 million for serious failings in its financial crime controls related to cum-ex trading. This marks the FCA's eighth enforcement action in this area, with total fines now exceeding £30 million.
Between 2013 and 2015, Mako facilitated over £90 billion in equity trades for the Solo Group across Danish and Belgian markets, earning around £1.45 million in commissions. The FCA determined that these trades were circular and appeared designed to enable improper withholding tax (WHT) reclaims. Some individuals involved have already been convicted in Denmark.
Mako failed to detect several warning signs, including purpose-less transactions that caused a €2 million loss for a Solo Group controller while benefiting associates. The firm also accepted payments from a third party in the UAE to settle debts without conducting adequate due diligence, heightening the risk of money laundering.
"Mako failed to spot clear red flags and facilitated highly suspicious trading that made it vulnerable to being used to support financial crime."
By not contesting the FCA's findings and agreeing to settle, Mako received a 30% discount on its fine. The FCA stressed that financial institutions must maintain strong safeguards to prevent being used for financial crime, warning that such failures damage the credibility of UK markets.
6. James Edward Staley (fined £1.1m)
Breaches of Individual Conduct Rules 1 (not acting with integrity) and 3 (open and cooperative with regulators), and Senior Manager Conduct Rule 4
The FCA has fined James Staley £1.1 million and banned him from holding senior management or significant influence roles in the financial services industry. This follows an investigation into his conduct as CEO of Barclays.
In 2019, Staley approved a letter to the FCA that contained misleading statements about his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The letter claimed that Staley had no close relationship with Epstein and had ceased contact before joining Barclays.
However, evidence, including emails, revealed that Staley had a longstanding relationship with Epstein and was in contact with him shortly before his appointment as CEO. The FCA found that Staley recklessly approved the letter, misrepresenting the nature and timing of his relationship with Epstein.
The Upper Tribunal upheld the FCA's findings, stating that Staley acted with a lack of integrity and failed to be open and cooperative with the regulator. The Tribunal also noted that Staley showed no remorse for his actions.
As a result of these breaches, the FCA has imposed a financial penalty and a prohibition order, reflecting the seriousness of Staley's misconduct and the importance of maintaining trust and integrity in senior leadership positions within the financial services industry.
7. Sigma Broking Limited (fined £1m)
Breaches of PRIN 3 and MiFIR
The FCA has fined Sigma Broking Limited £1,087,300 for failing to submit complete and accurate transaction reports over a five-year period. Between 1 December 2018 and 1 December 2023, Sigma submitted approximately 924,584 incorrect reports, nearly all of its transactions during that time.
These deficiencies stemmed from incorrect system setup and weaknesses in reporting processes during the implementation of MiFID II. The FCA identified these issues in May 2023, and Sigma's independent review confirmed the extent of the failures in February 2025. This is Sigma's second enforcement action for similar reporting failures; in October 2022, the FCA fined the firm £531,600 for failing to report 56,000 transactions and identify 97 suspicious trades between December 2014 and August 2016.
"The transaction reports we receive are crucial to the work we do in combatting financial crime. Sigma’s failures were serious, sustained and showed a lack of care."
8. Jean-Noel Alba (fined £1m)
Breaches of APER 1 and 4 and Individual Conduct Rule 1 and 3
The FCA has fined Jean-Noel Alba, former Deputy CEO of H2O Asset Management (H2O), £1,049,500 and banned him from the financial services industry for deliberately misleading the regulator.
Between April 2015 and November 2019, H2O failed to conduct proper due diligence on investments related to the Tennor Group, owned by Lars Windhorst. These high-risk investments left client funds trapped. In 2024, H2O agreed to compensate investors €250 million.
During the FCA's investigation, Mr Alba provided false and misleading statements and documentation. He instructed junior colleagues to create fake meeting minutes and submitted due diligence materials that were fabricated years after the investments were made.
Steve Smart, FCA's Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, stated that Mr. Alba's actions fell "well short" of expected standards and emphasised that senior leaders must act with integrity.
9. Toni Fox (fined £567k)
Breaches of PRIN 1
The FCA has imposed fines totalling £1,084,130 and banned two individuals, Toni Fox and David Price, from working in the financial services industry due to serious failings in pension transfer advice.
Between April 2015 and October 2017, their firm, CFP Management Ltd (CFP), through an appointed representative, advised on 1,470 pension transfers amounting to over £392 million. Over 99% of the advice recommended transferring out of defined benefit schemes, with more than 90% of cases failing to meet FCA standards. Notably, 33 clients were members of the British Steel Pension Scheme.
Ms. Fox, who designed the pension transfer model and approved nearly all advice, and Mr. Price, as a director overseeing operations, were found to have operated a flawed advice process that risked clients receiving unsuitable recommendations.
Both individuals have referred the FCA's decision to the Upper Tribunal, meaning the proposed actions are provisional and pending the Tribunal's determination.
10. David Brian Price (fined £465k)
Breaches of PRIN 1
The Upper Tribunal has upheld the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) decision to ban two financial advisers from the industry and impose substantial fines due to serious failings in pension transfer advice. The advisers, Toni Fox and David Price, were found responsible for operating a flawed advice process at CFP Management Ltd between April 2015 and October 2017.
Their firm advised on pension transfers totalling over £392 million, with more than 90% of cases failing to meet FCA standards. The FCA emphasised that individuals must be able to trust the advice they receive about their pensions, and the actions of these individuals were wholly unacceptable, exposing customers to significant financial risk.
11. Arian Financial LLP (fined £288k)
Breaches of PRIN 2 and PRIN 3
The FCA has fined interdealer broker Arian Financial £288,962 for failing to maintain effective anti-financial crime systems and controls, exposing the firm to potential misuse in fraudulent cum-ex trading and money laundering by clients of the Solo Group.
Between 2014 and 2015, Arian executed approximately £52 billion in circular over-the-counter equity trades in Danish and Belgian markets, earning around £547,000 in commissions. These trades facilitated withholding tax (WHT) reclaims by the Solo Group, with over £888 million paid out by Danish and Belgian tax authorities based on the suspicious transactions.
Although Arian admitted to the FCA's findings, it challenged the size of the fine at the Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the FCA’s conclusions but reduced the penalty from £744,745 to just under £289,000, adjusting for certain fees Arian had paid to Solo and a broker involved in the trades.
This case is the FCA’s seventh enforcement action related to cum-ex and WHT schemes, bringing total fines in this area to more than £22 million. The FCA criticised Arian for missing clear warning signs and failing to provide an adequate defence against financial crime.
"Arian failed to identify red flags which ought to have been obvious. The controls the firms we regulate have in place are an important line of defence against our financial system being abused for criminal ends. Arian’s fell short of what we expect. We are pleased that the Tribunal recognised the seriousness of Arian’s misconduct."
12. Diego Urra (fined £223k)
Breaches of Market Abuse Regulations and Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has successfully upheld its decision to ban and fine three former Mizuho International Plc traders, Diego Urra, Jorge Lopez Gonzalez, and Poojan Sheth, for engaging in market manipulation through spoofing.
The Upper Tribunal concurred with the FCA's findings that between 1 June and 29 July 2016, the traders placed large orders for Italian Government Bond futures (BTP futures) on the Eurex Exchange without the intention to execute them. These deceptive orders created false market signals, misleading other participants and facilitating the execution of their smaller, genuine orders.
The tribunal dismissed the traders' claims of legitimate trading strategies, such as "information discovery" and "anticipatory hedging," finding them unconvincing and inconsistent with the established pattern of manipulative behaviour.
13. Jorge Lopez Gonzalez (fined £100k)
Breaches of Market Abuse Regulations and Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
The Upper Tribunal has upheld the FCA's decision to ban and fine three former Mizuho International Plc traders, Diego Urra, Jorge Lopez Gonzalez, and Poojan Sheth, for engaging in market manipulation through spoofing. The tribunal dismissed the traders' appeals, confirming that their actions violated market abuse regulations.
As a result, the tribunal directed the FCA to impose prohibition orders on all three individuals and to levy individual financial penalties of £223,400 for Urra, £100,000 for Lopez Gonzalez, and £57,600 for Sheth.
14. Infinox Capital Limited (fined £99k)
Breaches of Article 26(1) of MiFIR
The FCA has fined Infinox Capital Limited £99,200 for failing to report over 46,000 transactions, potentially allowing market abuse to go undetected. Between October 2022 and March 2023, Infinox did not submit required transaction reports for single-stock contracts for difference (CFDs) traded through a corporate brokerage account—this account represented the bulk of its CFD business.
Although a third-party review helped Infinox identify the issue, the firm failed to alert the FCA. Instead, the regulator uncovered the reporting failures through its own monitoring. The case revealed significant weaknesses in Infinox’s systems and controls for handling transaction reporting on high-risk products.
This is the first FCA enforcement action for breach of transaction reporting obligations since the UK implemented the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR), marking a notable step in reinforcing market transparency and oversight.
"As a data-led regulator, it is vital that firms submit accurate and timely transaction reports, and promptly bring any failures to our attention. Infinox failed to do this, which meant market abuse could have flown under the radar and risked the integrity of the market."
15. Poojan Sheth (fined £57k)
Breaches of Market Abuse Regulations and Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has successfully upheld its decision to ban and fine three former Mizuho International Plc traders, Diego Urra, Jorge Lopez Gonzalez, and Poojan Sheth, for engaging in market manipulation through spoofing.
The Upper Tribunal concurred with the FCA's findings that between 1 June and 29 July 2016, the traders placed large orders for Italian Government Bond futures (BTP futures) on the Eurex Exchange without the intention to execute them. These deceptive orders created false market signals, misleading other participants and facilitating the execution of their smaller, genuine orders.
16. Markos Theodosi Markou (fined £10k)
Breach of Statement of Principle 1 (Integrity)
The FCA has fined Markos Theodosi Markou £10,000 and banned him from performing any regulated functions. He was found to have acted recklessly as CEO of Financial Solutions (Euro) Limited, including allowing the firm to operate without professional indemnity insurance, providing misleading evidence to the Tribunal, and failing to follow mortgage sales policies. The action highlights the FCA’s commitment to maintaining integrity in financial services.
FCA Fines FAQs
What is a Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) and how is it regulated?
A Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) is a UK exchange authorised by the FCA to trade securities or derivatives. RIEs must maintain orderly markets, monitor for abuse, and ensure member compliance, with the FCA supervising their operations and enforcing rules as needed
What steps can firms take to avoid FCA penalties?
Firms can mitigate the risk of FCA penalties by establishing comprehensive compliance frameworks. This includes implementing clear policies on market abuse, conducting regular staff training, maintaining accurate insider lists, and ensuring timely submission of Suspicious Transaction and Order Reports (STORs). Additionally, firms should regularly audit their surveillance systems to detect and address any potential issues promptly.
How does the FCA monitor and detect market abuse?
The FCA employs advanced surveillance tools to monitor trading activities, including the analysis of transaction reports and order books. Firms are required to submit STORs when they suspect market abuse, and issuers must maintain insider lists. The FCA also collaborates with other regulators and uses data analytics to identify and investigate potential instances of market abuse, ensuring the integrity of UK financial markets.
Want to learn more about FCA Compliance?
We have created an SMCR roadmap to help you navigate the compliance landscape, supported by a comprehensive library of FCA Courses.
Written by: Emmeline de Chazal
Emmeline is an experienced digital editor and content marketing executive. She has a demonstrated history of working in both the education management and software industries. Emmeline has a degree in business science and her skillset includes Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) and digital marketing analytics. She is passionate about education and utilising her skills to encourage greater access to e-learning.
