DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

FCA fines Charles Schwab UK £8.96 million over safeguarding and compliance failures

Posted on December 21, 2020 by Dissent

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined Charles Schwab UK Ltd (CSUK) £8.96 million for failing to adequately protect client assets, carrying out a regulated activity without permission and making a false statement to the FCA.

Customers affected by the breaches were all retail customers, who require the greatest level of protection.

Mark Steward, Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said:

‘Charles Schwab UK failed to get the correct permissions from the FCA; then failed to be open with us and, finally, failed to put in place the necessary safeguards to ensure, if required, there could be an orderly return of client assets.

‘As we saw with Lehman Brothers and subsequent cases, a lack of client asset protections can easily lead to increased costs to consumers and funds being trapped for long periods of time.

‘Firms, including newly-established businesses or firms coming into the UK from overseas, are responsible for ensuring they comply with our rules, and are expected to make sure they have the right protections in place.’

The breaches occurred between August 2017 and April 2019, after CSUK changed its business model. Client money was swept across from CSUK to its affiliate Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&C), a firm based in the United States.

The client assets, which were subject to UK rules, were held in CS&C’s general pool, which contained both firm and client money and which was held for both UK and non-UK clients.

CSUK failed to arrange adequate protection for its clients’ assets under UK rules. Specifically, the firm:

  • did not have the right records and accounts to identify its customers’ client assets
  • did not undertake internal or external reconciliations for its customers’ client assets
  • did not have adequate organisational arrangements to safeguard client assets
  • did not maintain a resolution pack, which would help to ensure a timely return of client assets in an insolvency

CSUK carried out a regulated activity without permission. The firm did not at all times have permission to safeguard and administer custody assets, and failed to notify the FCA of the breach when applying for the correct permission.

CSUK made a false statement to the FCA. Without making adequate enquiries to check whether this was correct, the firm inaccurately informed the FCA that its auditors had confirmed that it had adequate systems and controls in place to protect client assets.

The firm took remedial action at various points after discovering the breaches. There was no actual loss of client assets and CSUK stopped holding client assets from 1 January 2020.

CSUK agreed to settle the case and qualified for a 30% discount. The financial penalty would otherwise have been £12,804,600.

Source: FCA

No related posts.

Category: Financial Sector

Post navigation

← Premier Kids Care, Inc. notifies patients of attack first discovered in April
Federal Financial Agencies Propose Requirement for Computer Security Incident Notification →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.