On 15 December 2010, the FSA published the final notice it has issued to Vijay Kumar Sharma, a former director at Exetra (UK) Ltd.  Mr Sharma has been prohibited from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity because he is not a fit and proper person. Mr Sharma was convicted in September 2009 for acquiring a controlling interest in Exetra (UK) Ltd without giving the FSA prior notice, contrary to sections 178 and 191 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

He also knowingly or recklessly gave the FSA information which was false or misleading, contrary to section 398(1) of FSMA.

The publication of the final notice follows the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) striking out Mr Sharma’s reference in December 2010

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/vijay_sharma.pdf

Upper Tribunal strikes out fitness and propriety case –

The Tribunals Service has published the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v FSA, which was heard on 2 September and 22 November 2010.

On 9 December 2010, the Tribunals Service published the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) in the case of Vijay Kumar Sharma v FSA, which was heard on 2 September and 22 November 2010.

The FSA notified Mr Sharma, by a Decision Notice dated 21 April 2010, of its decision to impose a prohibition order banning him from performing any functions in relation to regulated activities on the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person. The FSA based its decision on the false information Mr Sharma provided when he submitted a controller form to the FSA as part of the change in control process under Part XII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

Mr Sharma referred the matter to the Tribunal and submitted explanations about the information he provided to the FSA. Under section 133 of the FSMA, the Tribunal is required to consider any evidence relating to the subject matter of the reference, whether or not it had been available to the FSA when making the decision. The FSA applied to the Tribunal to strike out the reference without a hearing on the grounds that the case has no real prospect of succeeding.

The Tribunal struck out Mr Sharma’s reference. This was on the basis that Mr Sharma misled the FSA and failed to comply with the requirements of the regulatory system. His honesty and integrity (and therefore his fitness and propriety) had been adversely demonstrated by the FSA. The Tribunal also commented that by seeking to bring a collateral civil challenge to his criminal convictions via the Tribunal, Mr Sharma is abusing the court process.

http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/010_VijayKumarSharma.pdf