When Should FCA Investigations Be Public? A Shifting Landscape in UK Enforcement

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has long held a reputation for rigorous enforcement. Yet one of the most contested aspects of its powers is when, if at all, it should publicise that an investigation has been launched. Traditionally, firms and individuals under scrutiny could rely on a high degree of confidentiality until the FCA reached a decision. Recent regulatory developments, however, suggest a decisive shift toward greater transparency.

The Traditional Approach: Confidentiality First

Historically, the FCA (and its predecessor, the FSA) kept investigations private. The rationale was clear: reputational damage can be severe and irreversible, particularly if an investigation is ultimately dropped without sanction. Confidentiality also encouraged cooperation, reduced unnecessary market volatility, and aligned with the principle that firms should not be “punished” before wrongdoing is proved.

Publicity usually only followed when the FCA issued a Warning Notice Statement, a Decision Notice, or a Final Notice — formal stages where the regulator had already made findings or imposed sanctions.

The New Direction: Transparency and Deterrence

In 2025, the FCA updated its Enforcement Guide to give itself greater flexibility to disclose the existence of investigations at an earlier stage. Under the new approach, the FCA may publicise investigations if it believes this serves the public interest. Factors that may weigh in favour of early disclosure include:

• Consumer protection: where publicity may prevent further harm.
• Market integrity: avoiding speculation or misinformation in the financial markets.
• Deterrence: sending a clear message that certain behaviours are under regulatory scrutiny.
• Public awareness: where the investigation is already widely known, making confidentiality futile.

This change aligns the FCA more closely with international regulators, such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which are more willing to publicise investigations earlier.

The Risks of Early Disclosure

The new policy is not without controversy. Critics argue that naming firms or individuals at the investigative stage risks:

• Irreparable reputational harm, even if no misconduct is found.
• Market disruption, where disclosure leads to investor withdrawal or contractual termination.
• Chilling effects on cooperation, if firms fear that self-reporting may expose them to public scrutiny before wrongdoing is established.

From a litigation perspective, the risk of “trial by headline” is significant. Firms that are ultimately cleared may have little practical recourse against the reputational damage suffered.

Strategic Considerations for Firms

In light of this shift, firms should consider:

• Crisis management planning: developing communication strategies for the possibility of public disclosure.
• Enhanced compliance and monitoring: to detect issues early and reduce the risk of an FCA investigation in the first place.
• Engagement strategy: deciding whether, and how, to cooperate proactively with the FCA in the event of an investigation, balancing transparency with reputational risk.

Conclusion: Balancing Fairness and Public Interest

The FCA’s move toward greater transparency marks a significant cultural shift in UK financial regulation. For firms, the era of “quiet investigations” may be drawing to a close. While early disclosure can enhance market confidence and consumer protection, it also raises profound questions of fairness. Ultimately, this evolving policy underscores the importance of robust compliance frameworks — and a readiness to manage not only regulatory risk, but also reputational fallout.

To discuss further, contact Dispute Resolution Partner Philip Rubens.