FCA moves to ban father and son over insurance broker fraud and client money misuse — findings remain provisional pending Upper Tribunal
Decision Notices issued against Alec and Robert Finch follow a High Court fraud finding, but both have referred to the Upper Tribunal, so the findings remain provisional.
Listen on Spotify
Verdict: worth reviewing. If you run a client money account or hold a senior role at an authorised firm, this one is worth five minutes. The mechanics of the misconduct are a useful reminder of how CASS failures and personal liability can compound.
The FCA has issued Decision Notices to ban Alec Finch and Robert Finch from UK financial services following a High Court judgment dated 27 September 2023. Both held roles at AFL Insurance Brokers Limited, a firm that has since changed its name to Ambon Brokers Limited and is no longer FCA-authorised.
The conduct is straightforward and serious. The Finches misused client money to fund AFL's business expenses, a direct breach of the principle that client money is held on trust and must not be used for the firm's own purposes. When they later decided to sell the business, they created false financial records to make AFL look more attractive to the buyer, misleading the buyer, their own accountants, and auditors in the process. The effect was a significant client money deficit left sitting on AFL's books.
The buyer commenced High Court proceedings against the pair in August 2020, with allegations centring on fraud. The FCA has acted in response to the court's judgment rather than running a parallel investigation from scratch, a relatively uncommon route to prohibition reflecting the High Court's findings rather than a separate FCA inquiry.
The FCA's enforcement director described the Finches as "the driving force behind every part of this serious fraud," adding that "they painted a false picture of a successful business and used client money for their own benefit, which they knew was wrong."
No financial penalties will be imposed. Both individuals provided verifiable evidence that any penalty would cause serious financial hardship. Had they not done so, the FCA would have fined Alec Finch £121,200 and Robert Finch £169,800.
One important caveat: both Finches have referred their Decision Notices to the Upper Tribunal, where each will present their case. The findings are therefore provisional and reflect only the FCA's current view of what occurred. Final determinations rest with the Tribunal.
For compliance officers, the pattern here is familiar: client money used to plug operational gaps, followed by falsified records to hide the hole. If your CASS reconciliations are clean and your client money oversight is documented, this is a useful prompt to confirm it and move on.
