UT-2023-000032 - [2024] UKUT 00265 (TCC)

After leaving Tenet Mr Ashraf said that he spoke to a total of 14 different regulated firms and the first meeting always went really well. He fully disclosed what had happened with the investigation with Tenet and was told that it should not be an issue, but that "we will just need to see what the regulatory reference says". The next working day Mr Ashraf would get a call telling him that the compliance officer was unable to sign his engagement off, as they did not know how they could justify the appointment to the Authority.

Mr Ashraf said that the only option left to him to ensure that he could carry on in the profession, in which he had invested over 16 years of his time, was to submit an application to be directly authorised by the Authority. He felt confident that a case officer would take a thorough look at his application, look past the word termination (which the other network firms seemed unable to do) and review his case on its own merits.

In cross examination, Mr Ashraf was taken to the Authority’s note of an engagement and competency interview with Mr Ashraf on 17 June 2022. He was asked what his contingency plans were if the Applicant’s authorisation application was not approved. Mr Ashraf said that he had some contacts in the industry and would speak to them to see if there was a way for him to be authorised through a network or different advisory firm. Mr Jones put it to Mr Ashraf that his account in his witness statement does not square with what he told the Authority. Mr Ashraf said that he did not want to look desperate in front of the Authority and what he told them was a “white lie”.

In the same meeting Mr Ashraf was asked about his termination at SJP. He said they were “unhappy with the process I was following in regards to providing advice to my clients”, but made no mention of SJP’s concerns about his lack of transparency.

Mr Ashraf was also taken to a supplementary information form (FCA Form A) dated 2 April 2022, where he made a statement about his termination by SJP. Again, he gave the reason as failing to comply with internal procedures but did not mention SJP’s transparency concerns.