Brief
Fuenmayor decision notice: disclosure controls before the Upper Tribunal
The FCA has decided to impose a £99,600 penalty on Carlos Fuenmayor over alleged disclosure failures. The decision notice is before the Upper Tribunal, so the findings are not final.
Michaela Clarke
Operations & Compliance Coordinator
At a Glance
The FCA has issued a decision notice proposing a £99,600 fine against Carlos Ricardo Fuenmayor for failing to disclose overseas regulatory actions while holding multiple controlled functions at BancTrust Investment Bank.
Case status: Mr Fuenmayor has referred the decision notice to the Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal will determine what, if any, action the FCA should take, so the findings and proposed penalty are not final.
The decision notice illustrates the FCA's stated approach to complete and timely disclosure of material information, including overseas regulatory matters, by approved persons under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR). The notice specifically cites failures to disclose a FINRA sanction and Venezuelan regulator actions regarding frozen accounts.
The decision notice criticises the failure to disclose information the FCA regarded as potentially material and rejects Mr Fuenmayor's assessment that the information was irrelevant. Firms should review their processes for identifying and escalating reportable matters, particularly those involving overseas regulators or politically sensitive contexts.
What the Case Reveals
Disclosure obligations extend to overseas regulatory actions
The FCA's decision notice alleges that Mr Fuenmayor breached APER 4 and SMCR 4 by failing to disclose a FINRA suspension and Venezuelan regulator's freezing of accounts. The notice states that regulatory actions by overseas authorities, even without formal sanctions, may require disclosure if the FCA would reasonably expect notice.
The FCA rejected the personal relevance assessment in this notice
Despite advice from compliance staff to disclose Venezuelan regulator actions, Mr Fuenmayor decided against reporting based on his belief about political motivations. The FCA's decision notice says this constituted a negligent failure to meet disclosure obligations under SMCR, regardless of the individual's assessment of relevance.
The notice focuses on updating pending applications
The notice highlights a failure to update a Variation of Permission (VOP) application with material information (the Venezuelan regulator action) before determination. This underscores ongoing disclosure obligations during application processes, not just at submission.
Who Faces Similar Risk
The control lesson is most relevant to senior managers holding controlled functions under SMCR, particularly those with international operations or regulatory exposure. The individual held multiple roles including CEO, MLRO and Compliance Oversight at BancTrust. Firms with approved persons who have faced overseas regulatory scrutiny or operate in jurisdictions with political sensitivities should pay particular attention.
While the notice specifically addresses individual accountability under SMCR, it has implications for firms' governance frameworks. The case involved multiple compliance officers and a failure to properly escalate and document disclosure decisions. FCA-authorised firms with relevant international exposure should assess whether their processes capture and escalate overseas regulatory matters for a documented disclosure decision.
Control Evidence to Test
Firms should review their processes for identifying and assessing reportable matters, particularly those involving overseas regulators. The case shows that frozen accounts or investigations, even without formal sanctions, may trigger disclosure obligations. MEMA recommends mapping all jurisdictions where senior managers have regulatory exposure and establishing monitoring mechanisms for potential reportable events.
The notice highlights the importance of documenting disclosure decisions, especially when compliance advice differs from senior management decisions. Firms should ensure their governance frameworks create clear audit trails when material information is identified but not disclosed. MEMA suggests reviewing record-keeping around Form D submissions and similar notifications to demonstrate proper consideration of disclosure obligations.
Control Lessons for Firms
| Action | Owner | Status | Timing | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review SMCR training to ensure coverage of overseas regulatory disclosure obligations | Head of Compliance | MEMA recommended action | Next training cycle | FCA Decision Notice CRF01036 |
| Assess whether senior managers have overseas regulatory exposure requiring monitoring | MLRO/SMCR team | Risk-based action | Quarterly review cycle | FCA Decision Notice CRF01036 |
| Review documentation processes for disclosure decisions that override compliance advice | Governance team | MEMA recommended action | Next governance review | FCA Decision Notice CRF01036 |
MEMA Analysis
The FCA's decision notice against Mr Fuenmayor demonstrates how the regulator views disclosure obligations under SMCR. The case specifically addresses failures to report a FINRA suspension and Venezuelan regulator's account freezing, showing the FCA expects notification of overseas regulatory matters that could impact fitness assessments. Boards should ask whether their firms have adequate processes to identify such events across all jurisdictions where senior managers operate.
This case raises important questions about governance around disclosure decisions. The notice reveals that compliance staff identified the need to disclose but were overruled by the senior manager. MEMA analysis suggests boards should review whether their firms maintain proper documentation when material information is considered but not disclosed, particularly when compliance advice differs from management decisions.
MEMA can provide SMCR implementation support for firms reviewing how the development affects their permissions, products and operating model.
For the wider individual-accountability context, see our guide to SMCR accountability and evidence.
Source Evidence
| Source | Document type | Published | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCA decides to fine Carlos Ricardo Fuenmayor £99,600 for disclosure failures | Decision | 2026-06-11 | Primary FCA source for the provisional decision notice, the FCA's stated disclosure concerns, the proposed £99,600 penalty and Mr Fuenmayor's Upper Tribunal referral. |
Plain English Glossary
- SMCR - Senior Managers and Certification Regime. Accountability framework requiring named senior managers, certified individuals, and conduct rules training.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. Firms should assess the application of regulatory requirements by reference to their permissions, products, customers and operating model.
How MEMA Can Help
MEMA can help firms translate regulatory change into practical controls, policies, monitoring activity and board evidence. Book a free scoping call to discuss what this development means for your firm.
Frequently asked questions
What types of overseas regulatory actions require disclosure to the FCA?
The FCA decision notice specifies that investigations, sanctions, or penalties from overseas regulators affecting senior managers may require disclosure. In this case, the FCA considered both a FINRA suspension and the Venezuelan regulator's freezing of accounts reportable in this notice. Firms should assess all regulatory actions that could impact fitness assessments.
How should firms document decisions not to disclose potentially material information?
The FCA notice highlights the importance of proper documentation when compliance advice recommends disclosure but management decides otherwise. Firms should maintain records showing the rationale for non-disclosure decisions, particularly for overseas matters or politically sensitive contexts, as demonstrated in this case.
What does the notice say about updating pending applications?
The notice reinforces that material information arising during application processes must be disclosed promptly. In this case, the FCA cited a failure to update a VOP application with details of Venezuelan regulatory action before determination. Firms should review processes for ongoing disclosure during application periods.
Need expert regulatory guidance?
Our ex-regulator team helps firms navigate complex requirements and evidence compliance with confidence.
Book a Free Scoping CallRelated insights
View all insights →
AIFM proportionality depends on operating-model evidence
CP26/28 proposes three AIFM size tiers, a new ALTS sourcebook and revised transition rules. Classification decisions will depend on reliable operating-model evidence.
FRAME reporting: the control decisions behind CP26/26
CP26/26 proposes consolidated fund returns, essential and enhanced reporting tiers, and different reporting lags. This analysis maps the proposal to fund-level data controls.
Remuneration reform shifts the burden to governance evidence
The FCA proposes consolidating three existing remuneration codes into a single framework for AIFMs, UCITS managers and MIFIDPRU investment firms, with responses due by 16 September 2026.