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
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

  • Nigerian National Sentenced To More Than Five Years For Hacking, Fraud, And Identity Theft Scheme
  • Data breach of patient info ends in firing of Miami hospital employee
  • Texas DOT investigates breach of crash report records, sends notification letters
  • PowerSchool hacker pleads guilty, released on personal recognizance bond
  • Rewards for Justice offers $10M reward for info on RedLine developer or RedLine’s use by foreign governments
  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Google: Hackers target Salesforce accounts in data extortion attacks
  • The US Grid Attack Looming on the Horizon

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

  • California county accused of using drones to spy on residents
  • How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act
  • 23andMe Bankruptcy Judge Ponders Trump Bill’s Injunction Impact
  • Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant

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.