The U.K. Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) ban on fund manager Crispin Odey — after the regulator concluded that he “lacked integrity” — has been upheld on appeal by the Upper Tribunal.
In March 2025, the FCA issued an order banning Odey, the founder and majority owner of Odey Asset Management (OAM), for resisting his firm’s own internal disciplinary efforts stemming from “repeated and persistent inappropriate behaviour” toward the firm’s female employees.
According to the FCA, after the firm’s executive committee attempted to take disciplinary action against him, he “bullied and threatened his executive directors” and twice disbanded the firm’s executive committee.
“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,” the FCA said. “Mr. Odey’s only purpose was self-preservation and to avoid being held to account for his behaviour.”
The regulator found that Odey “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 normalized — sending a clear message that he was effectively untouchable.”
On appeal to the U.K.’s Upper Tribunal, Odey argued that there were good reasons for dismissing the executive committees, and he denied that he ever acted without integrity.
“Mr. Odey relies on a range of arguments as to why he did not lack integrity in removing the [committees] which broadly fall into four categories: unfairness; pressure; existential threat; and the final result of the [internal investigation] not leading to his dismissal,” the tribunal said in its decision.
However, the Tribunal rejected his appeal arguments and sided with the FCA in finding that he lacked integrity in these dealings.
Among other things, the Tribunal found that disbanding the committees “was deliberately designed to frustrate [the firm’s] ongoing disciplinary process in relation to his conduct, and thereby to limit his personal accountability.”
It also said that his conduct caused the firm to breach its regulatory obligations and “demonstrated a reckless disregard for OAM’s governance and compliance with regulatory rules and obligations.”
“He risked entrenching an existing culture within OAM, where inappropriate behaviour by him toward female employees had been normalized, and where there was a belief amongst some employees at least, that allegations of misconduct against Mr Odey would not be properly scrutinized or challenged and/or that such behaviour would be tolerated,” the decision said, adding that his dealings with OAM, its clients and investors, and with the FCA “lacked candour.”
“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,” said Therese Chambers, executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, in a release.
“‘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,” she added.
While the Tribunal upheld the FCA’s decision to ban Odey, it reduced his proposed monetary sanction to £1.5 million from £1.8 million — after finding that the aggravating factors considered by the FCA as part of its calculation of monetary sanctions shouldn’t be applied to boost the fine.