Veracent Intelligence

All questions · CON-01 · Core criterion

Are there published regulatory enforcement actions against this entity?

Answered for 12 of 12 firms. The regulator's own published final notice or decision

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 211468 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 712935 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 783189 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 115248 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 195355 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

The Financial Services Register records a disciplinary history entry against this firm, of type "Fines", under FSMA, effective from 12/12/2011. The register describes it as: "The FSA imposed a penalty on the firm for breaches of Principle 3, Principle 10 and associated FSA Rules set out in the CASS sourcebook. The breaches related to failings by the firm relating to its management and protection of client money. IFA did not perform any internal reconciliation (client money calculations) between 2001 and 2010 and as a consequence failed to identify or fund any shortfalls in its client money bank accounts. This meant that money belonging to one client was used to cross fund other clients and resulted in clients money being at risk if IFA became insolvent. IFA also failed to put in place adequate trust documentation for three of its 28 client bank accounts which also put client money at risk in the event of the firm's insolvency. Furthermore, IFA failed to put in place adequate risk management systems in relation to client money. The FSA required IFA to appoint a skilled person under section 166 to review its client asset processes, and IFA has agreed to comply with the skilled person's recommendations. No clients of IFA have suffered any losses as a consequence of the breaches identified. The Final Notice, which sets out the reasons for the action can be found at the following link: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/ifa.pdf"

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 552016 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

The Financial Services Register records a disciplinary history entry against this firm, of type "Fines", under FSMA, effective from 07/07/2025. The register describes it as: "A final notice has been issued in relation to Monzo because it breached Principle 3 in failing to take reasonable care to organise and control its systems and controls for managing the risk of financial crime (in particular in connection with customer onboarding) responsibly and effectively during the Pre VREQ Period. Monzo also contravened relevant requirements imposed upon it (under section 55L(5)(a) of the Act) during the Relevant VREQ Period. https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/monzo-bank-limited.pdf"

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

REVOLUT LTD

Verified

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 900562 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

The Financial Services Register records a disciplinary history entry against this firm, of type "Fines", under FSMA, effective from 27/09/2024. The register describes it as: "A final notice has been issued in relation to failings in Starling Bank Limited's financial crime systems and controls as well as their breaches of a Voluntary Requirement (VREQ). https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/final-notices/starling-bank-limited-2024.pdf"

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 609146 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

A query of the Financial Services Register disciplinary history for firm reference number 900507 on 2026-09-25 returned no published entries. The register reported: "Disciplinary history information not found".

Statutory register · Financial Conduct Authority · FCA Register — Disciplinary History · Check the source

Every firm here was asked the same question against the same published standard, and every answer quotes the passage it came from. Where the answers differ, the difference is in the firms’ own documents, not in how we read them.

Darker text marks stronger evidence. A statutory register prints at full strength; a firm’s own marketing prints lighter. The methodology sets out the weightings.