UT/2023/000092 - [2024] UKUT 00035 (TCC)

In line with the framework suggested by the authorities referred to in Sussex the first question is whether there is a case to answer. This question was not pressed in Mr Auld’s oral submissions which focussed on the key second stage of whether there was a significant risk posed by granting a suspension beyond that of a broadly compliant firm and the third stage of whether in the overall balancing the suspension should be granted. (As regards the submission embedded in Mr Jacklin’s second witness statement that there was no case to answer because the AML deficiencies alleged in the FSSN were not serious enough to warrant the requirements imposed then I disagree with the analysis for the reasons set out below at [64]).