Information on 79th Group - February 2026

Your requests in full

Email dated 10 Oct 2025:

1. Did the FCA receive warnings about the 79th Group in or around November 2024?
2. If warnings were received, what action did the FCA take?
3. Why was no public warning issued if a credible consumer risk existed?

Email dated 13 Oct 2025:

I therefore require substantive answers to the following questions, which go to the heart of the FCA's regulatory competence and accountability:

1. Given that The 79th Group operated through regulated marketing activities and unauthorised promotion to UK consumers, on what legal basis does the FCA claim limited jurisdiction over this scheme?
2. Was the decision not to issue consumer warnings formally recorded and approved by Senior Management, and if so, please advise who approved this and what the justification was in doing so? This decision had damaging consequences for many people and could have cost them millions of pounds.
3. Why did the FCA choose to defer to police investigation rather than exercise its independent statutory enforcement powers, particularly given its successful prosecution of similar cases?
4. What specific assessment was made of the regulated elements within The 79th Group's operations, including marketing materials and promotional activities targeting UK retail investors?
5. How does the FCA reconcile its failure to issue consumer warnings with the consumer protection objective mandated by section 1B of FSMA, particularly given the international reputational implications?
6. What steps is the FCA taking to ensure that the systemic failures evident in this case do not enable similar schemes to operate with impunity in future?

Clarification dated 7 November 2025:

Thank you for your response dated 7 November 2025. I understand that you require clarification of the specific recorded information I am seeking in order to process my request. I am happy to provide this clarification.

My request is for access to specific recorded information held by the FCA that will answer the questions I have raised. To be clear, I am not asking for explanations or the creation of new information, but for disclosure of existing records that document the FCA's actions and decision-making processes.

1. In relation to my first question, concerning whether the FCA received warnings about the 79th Group in or around November 2024, I am requesting all recorded communications received by the FCA between 1 October 2024 and 31 December 2024 that mention or relate to the 79th Group. This includes emails, letters, reports, and any other form of correspondence. I also request access to all internal FCA documents from the same period that discuss the 79th Group, such as internal emails and memoranda, as well as any intelligence reports or consumer complaints received.
2. Regarding my second question, about the decision not to issue consumer warnings, I am seeking all recorded information from October 2024 to March 2025 that documents this decision-making process. This includes any meeting minutes, formal decision records, risk assessments, or approval documents. I am also requesting the names and roles of all FCA staff and senior management involved in the decision not to issue a consumer warning, and specifically, any records that show which senior manager ultimately approved this decision and the justification provided.
3. For my third question, which concerns the FCA’s choice to defer to a police investigation, I request disclosure of all correspondence between the FCA and the City of London Police regarding the 79th Group from October 2024 to the present. I am also seeking any internal FCA documents, such as emails or legal advice, that discuss the decision to refer the matter to the police rather than taking direct regulatory action.
4. In response to my fourth question about the assessment of regulated elements, I am requesting any analysis, reports, or assessments conducted by FCA staff on the 79th Group's marketing materials and promotional activities. This includes any records of who was responsible for reviewing these materials and the conclusions of that review. I also request any legal opinions obtained by the FCA regarding the regulatory status of the 79th Group’s operations and any communications with other regulators on this matter.
5. Concerning my fifth question about reconciling the failure to issue warnings with the FCA’s consumer protection objective, I am seeking any internal risk assessments or consumer impact analyses relating to the 79th Group. I also request any records that document the consideration given to the FCA’s duties under section 1B of FSMA in this case. Specifically, I request all internal policy documents, guidance, and procedures that outline the FCA's process for protecting retail investors from suspected Ponzi schemes or other unlawful collective investment schemes. This is to understand how the FCA is supposed to help investors like me in such situations.
6. Finally, for my sixth question regarding the steps being taken to prevent similar schemes, I request access to any policy reviews, procedural changes, or operational improvements that have been implemented as a result of the 79th Group case. This includes any internal communications discussing lessons learned and any updates to FCA guidance or staff training.

In addition to the above, I also request any recorded information held by the FCA regarding the High Court’s decision to grant worldwide freezing orders and injunctions against the directors and connected parties of the 79th Group. This includes any communications between the FCA and the High Court, or any internal FCA documents discussing the implications of the High Court’s intervention.

I trust this detailed clarification provides the necessary specificity for you to identify and locate the recorded information I am seeking. All of these requests pertain to documents and records that should exist within the FCA’s systems if proper regulatory procedures were followed.

Please confirm receipt of this clarification and advise when I can expect to receive the requested information.

• General right of access to information held by public authorities

Anyone requesting information from a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing whether it holds the information described (this is under section 1(1)(a) of FOIA). If the public authority does hold it, the person requesting it is entitled to have the information communicated to them, under section 1(1)(b). However, there are exclusions and exemptions to these rights. The exemptions that apply to the scope of your request are set out below.

• Section 44 (Prohibitions on Disclosure)

Section 44(1)(a) of FOIA states that information is absolutely exempt from disclosure if this is prohibited by law. Section 348 of FSMA restricts the FCA from disclosing 'confidential information' it has received in the course of carrying out its public function. FSMA allows exceptions to this in a few specific circumstances, but none of these apply to this request.

Confidential information here is defined as non-public and non-anonymised information involving a person's business or other affairs, which the FCA received in the course of carrying out its public function.

Some of the information you requested is confidential information under this provision. Disclosure of this information in breach of section 348 of FSMA would be a criminal offence.

Furthermore, a public authority does not have to confirm or deny whether it holds the information requested if doing so is prohibited under another Act from FOIA. 

If we held information falling within the scope of questions 1 of your request (which we do not confirm or deny) it would be 'confidential information' which was received by the FCA in the discharge of its functions under FSMA. Disclosing such 'confidential information' in breach of section 348 of FSMA would be a criminal offence.

Section 44 is an absolute exemption which means that if it is engaged, a weighing of the public interest for or against disclosing the information (if held) or for and against maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny whether the information is held by a public authority is not required.

Section 31 (Law enforcement) 

The qualified exemption in section 31(1)(g) of FOIA applies to this request because disclosure of some of the information requested would be likely to prejudice the exercise by the FCA of its functions for the following purposes:

• the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
• the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise.

Since section 31 is a 'qualified exemption', we have considered relevant factors in favour and against disclosing the information, as required by FOIA.

For disclosure 

• There is a strong public interest in favour of transparency and in the public being reassured about the effectiveness of the FCA's approach.
• Disclosing the information would demonstrate how we respond to matters arising in the markets we regulate. It would also enable stakeholders (including regulated firms) to better understand why and how we make decisions on regulatory matters.
• Disclosure would also provide the public with information to help them in making decisions about their dealings, or potential dealings, with the markets and firms that are operating in the financial services sector.

Against disclosure

• Disclosure would introduce into the public domain information about our regulatory strategies and approaches, which may be used by firms or individuals to circumvent or undermine our regulatory approach.
• Disclosing the information could lead to further speculation which, without any further background information, would be likely to be taken out of context and lead to the wrong conclusions being drawn about our decision-making processes.

Furthermore, we do not have to confirm or deny whether we hold some of the information if doing so could prejudice how we exercise our functions for any of the purposes specified in section 31(2). When considering whether to confirm or deny the existence of information, we are required to conduct a public interest test. 

Against maintaining the exclusion (i.e. for confirming or denying):

• There is a strong public interest in favour of transparency and the public being reassured about the effectiveness of our regulatory approach. Disclosing the information (if it exists) would demonstrate how we respond to matters arising in the sector we regulate.
• Disclosing the information (if it exists) would give the public insight into information sharing and co-operation between the FCA and other agencies.

For maintaining the exclusion (i.e. not confirming or denying):

• Confirming or denying that we hold the information (which may or may not be the case) could enable individuals to draw conclusions about the storing and gathering of intelligence. In turn, this may encourage those willing to engage in criminal activity to track and monitor our law enforcement capability and therefore exploit areas of weakness.
• Confirming or denying that we hold information (which may or may not be the case) would be likely to adversely affect the brand and reputation of the relevant markets and/or entities without due process having been followed - i.e. without any formal public announcement and without the relevant markets and/or entities having had the opportunity to comment.
• Confirming or denying that we hold information falling within the scope of the request would also be likely to affect the way that we interact with the firms and individuals we regulate, make firms less willing to voluntarily share information with us, and so risk the need for the FCA to use its statutory information-gathering powers, which may lead to delays and disputes with firms when gathering information.

On the facts of this particular request, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest is in favour of applying the exemption under section 31 of FOIA for these reasons.

• Section 40 (Personal Information)

Under section 40(2)(b) of FOIA, information that contains personal data of third-party individuals is exempt from disclosure if any one of three specified conditions is satisfied.

In this instance, we have applied this exemption because the first condition (as stated in section 40(3A) of FOIA) is satisfied. Some of the information you have requested comprises the personal data of individuals other than yourself, whose disclosure would breach one of the data protection principles.

In particular, we are of the view that disclosure would breach the first data protection Principle as set out in Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR that personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner, for the following reasons:

The data subjects would not have had any reasonable expectation that this information would be disclosed into the public domain.

We do not consider that disclosing this information is necessary or justified.

Therefore, this information is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of FOIA.

This is an 'absolute' exemption, and so it is not necessary to balance the public interest for and against disclosing the information.

Section 42 (Legal professional privilege)

This section states that information that could be legal professional privilege is exempt. This exemption under FOIA includes advice from lawyers to the FCA, including internal legal advice.

Section 42 of FOIA is a qualified exemption which means we have to balance the public interest for and against disclosure as required by FOIA.

For disclosure

• As part of providing wider transparency about the FCA's work there may be a legitimate public interest in disclosing any legal advice which has been provided.

Against disclosure

• It is strongly in the public interest for the FCA to be able to have open and candid communications with its lawyers, whether internal or external, to ensure we seek and receive the best possible legal advice, given without fear or favour. This enables us to carry out our statutory functions lawfully as well as effectively. Our ability to seek and receive proper and adequate legal advice, in a free and frank way, would be undermined if our exchanges with its lawyers were made publicly available.
• Disclosing the legal advice would prejudice the FCA's ability to defend our legal interests. This would be both directly, by unfairly exposing our legal position to challenge, and indirectly, by reducing our reliance on legal advice having been fully considered and presented without fear or favour.
• The public interest is generally not served by disclosing material that is covered by legal professional privilege.

Having balanced the public interest for and against disclosure as required by FOIA, in this case, in our view, the public interest lies against disclosure for the reasons set out above.