Upper Tribunal upholds Crispin Odey ban

Mr Odey was the founder and majority owner of Odey Asset Management (OAM). He faced an internal disciplinary process for breaching a final written warning relating to repeated and persistent inappropriate behaviour towards female employees.

In response, Mr Odey bullied and threatened his executive directors. He then twice dismissed OAM’s executive committee (ExCo) when they did not give in to his improper pressure. Mr Odey was only willing to answer to a governing body that would make a decision he agreed with, which was not to sack him. By removing them, he brought the internal disciplinary process to a halt.

Mr Odey’s only purpose was self-preservation and to avoid being held to account for his behaviour. He abused his power and disregarded the impact that his actions had on the firm and its employees – in particular women who had to work in a culture where his inappropriate behaviour had been normalised – sending a clear message that he was effectively untouchable.

The Tribunal considered Mr Odey’s attempted justifications for removing the ExCos to be no more than a smokescreen. He thought he should have free rein to conduct himself with female staff according to his own impaired judgment as to what was appropriate.

The FCA’s case against Mr Odey comprised of 5 allegations. The Tribunal fully upheld them all and agreed that each demonstrated his lack of integrity. Alongside the allegations arising directly from his dismissal of the ExCo's, the Tribunal upheld the allegations that Mr Odey’s dealings with OAM, its clients, its investors and the FCA lacked candour. This included false assertions to and threatening behaviour towards the FCA’s staff.

The Tribunal found that during the trial, Mr Odey demonstrated a lack of insight into why his conduct lacked integrity, expressing no contrition for his behaviour and wrongly considering himself the victim. In multiple respects, the Tribunal found that Mr Odey’s evidence lacked credibility.

Therese Chambers, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA said: 'Mr Odey clearly thought he could act with impunity. He twice sacked those tasked with protecting female employees from his inappropriate behaviour when they tried to hold him to account. 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.'

The FCA had proposed to fine Mr Odey £1.83 million alongside the ban. The Tribunal decided to reduce this to £1.53m.

Notes to editors

1. Upper Tribunal findings[1].
2. Notice of Decision for Robin Crispin William Odey[2].
3. The fine was reduced after the Tribunal decided that there should be no uplift for aggravating factors that the FCA had applied as part of its calculation.