The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has won its case against Crispin Odey after a tribunal upheld the Crispin Odey City ban, ruling that he lacked integrity and was unfit to work in financial services. The Upper Tribunal dismissed Mr Odey’s challenge on Monday, confirming the FCA’s decision to bar him from the UK finance industry.
The FCA is the body that regulates financial firms and individuals in the UK. Its power to ban someone from working in the industry is one of its strongest tools, and cases of this kind are heard by the Upper Tribunal, an independent judicial body that reviews regulatory decisions.
What the tribunal found
At the heart of the case was how Mr Odey handled internal disciplinary proceedings at his firm, Odey Asset Management (OAM). He had been given a final written warning by OAM in 2021 over dozens of historical allegations of inappropriate conduct towards female employees between 2003 and 2020. He was later alleged to have breached that warning by sexually harassing a temporary receptionist later the same year.
When OAM’s executive committee (ExCo) (the group tasked with investigating the alleged breach) began its work, Mr Odey twice dismissed its members, leaving himself as its sole remaining member. The tribunal’s 229-page ruling found he did so because he ‘feared they would not find in his favour’, and that he had ‘no reasonable basis’ for the removals.
Mr Justice Thompsell, Upper Tribunal Judge Rupert Jones and Upper Tribunal member Cathy Farquharson wrote that Mr Odey ‘was aware he held power and at times he exercised it with junior female staff for personal gratification.’ They found that his apparent contrition when handed the final written warning was a ‘momentary expression’ designed to ‘reduce the prospect of dismissal’, and that his beliefs when he dismissed the ExCos ‘reflected a warped set of values based on a strong sense of entitlement.’
The ruling also addressed Mr Odey’s conduct during the tribunal proceedings themselves: ‘Mr Odey’s evidence in these proceedings has demonstrated that there remains a lack of insight into why his conduct, in particular, in twice removing ExCo, lacks integrity. He has expressed no contrition for it. He sees nothing wrong with his approach, and indeed he wrongly sees himself as the victim of both OAM’s actions and the authority’s.’
The FCA’s response to the Crispin Odey City ban ruling
Therese Chambers, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said the outcome confirmed that Mr Odey had treated the rules as if they did not apply to him. ‘He twice sacked those tasked with protecting female employees from his inappropriate behaviour when they tried to hold him to account,’ she said. ‘He felt the rules shouldn’t apply to him and acted to save his own skin. During the hearing he reinvented history, painted himself as a victim and displayed no contrition. That arrogant entitlement and the resulting complete disregard for proper governance means Mr Odey is unfit to work in financial services.’
During the tribunal hearings in London, Clare Sibson KC, acting for the FCA, argued in written submissions that the dismissal of the ExCos was ‘motivated by Mr Odey’s self-interest.’ Lawyers for Mr Odey maintained that he acted out of a belief that he was facing an unfair process that would result in his removal from the company. Mr Odey denied the allegations and said in a witness statement that he believed he had become ‘a poster boy for the authority’s agenda’ and was the victim of ‘a campaign by the authority to achieve my removal.’
Background: how the case reached the tribunal
Allegations against Mr Odey emerged in the media in 2023, according to The Guardian. The FCA subsequently began its investigation, and according to Clifford Chance, the FCA’s Decision Notice was dated 3 March 2025. That notice provisionally banned Mr Odey from working in financial services on grounds of a ‘lack of integrity’, according to Pallas LLP. Mr Odey then challenged the decision before the Upper Tribunal.
Separately, The Guardian also reported that Mr Odey launched a libel claim in May 2024 against the Financial Times over coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations.
On the question of the financial penalty, the FCA had previously fined Mr Odey £1,835,200. The tribunal reduced that figure to £1,529,374. Mr Odey’s challenge against the ban itself has now been dismissed in full.
