Tariq Carrimjee of Somerset Asset Management took his case to the Tribunal, but the original decision was upheld.

He was banned from carrying out the compliance oversight and money laundering reporting significant influence functions.

Mr Carrimjee was an investment and fund manager who held senior positions at Somerset and was responsible for compliance oversight.

In an earlier decision issued on 4 March 2015 the Tribunal found that Mr Carrimjee had failed to act with due skill, care and diligence in failing to calculate the risk that his client, Rameshkumar Goenka, might have been intending to engage in market manipulation, and that this risk should have been apparent to Mr Carrimjee.

The Tribunal imposed a penalty of £89,004 on Mr Carrimjee. It also remitted part of the case back to the authority to reconsider and reach a decision as to the extent of any ban in accordance with its findings.

In November 2015 the FCA imposed a partial ban on Mr Carrimjee relating to the compliance oversight and money laundering reporting significant influence functions and Mr Carrimjee then referred that decision to the Tribunal.

A decision notice stated: “Mr Carrimjee is not a fit and proper person by reason of lacking competence and capability.

“More particularly, as set out in the Decision, Mr Carrimjee either failed to appropriately identify the risk of market abuse or did nothing to allay his concerns about potential market abuse other than to seek inadequate reassurances from Mrs Parikh.

“This was a serious failure and it is compounded by the fact that the Authority relies on those who hold the compliance oversight (CF10) function to provide it with market intelligence in order to identify and prevent market abuse.”

The Tribunal was required to consider the extent of its jurisdiction and the standard of review it should conduct as well as evidence of the steps Mr Carrimjee had taken since the authority’s decision to impose a partial ban.

The Tribunal made a number of findings including that his failure to spot the warning signs of market abuse were “basic, fundamental and serious”.

The Tribunal concluded that the FCA’s decision to impose a partial ban was one that was reasonably open to the FCA to make. It remains open to the parties to appeal this judgment.