Beyond the headlines: the unseen fight against financial crime17/06/2026

# Beyond the headlines: the unseen fight against financial crime SpeechesFirst published: 17/06/2026Last updated: 17/06/2026 Speech by Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, delivered at the International Bar Association (IBA) Anti-Corruption Conference. ## On this page  - [Changing threat, changing model](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/beyond-headlines-unseen-fight-against-financial-crime#section-changing-threat-changing-model) - [Cutting off harm at the root](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/beyond-headlines-unseen-fight-against-financial-crime#section-cutting-off-harm-at-the-root) - [A global problem calls for a global response](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/beyond-headlines-unseen-fight-against-financial-crime#section-a-global-problem-calls-for-a-global-response) - [Conclusion](https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/beyond-headlines-unseen-fight-against-financial-crime#section-conclusion)  **Speaker:** Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight **Event:** 22nd Annual IBA Anti-Corruption Conference **Delivered:** 17 June 2026 **Note:** This is a drafted speech and may differ from the delivered version. **Reading time:** 8 minutes ## Key messages: - Financial crime is becoming faster, more complex and more widespread than ever before. We are making fuller use of the tools available to us, including the credible threat of enforcement, to step in before harm escalates. - Enforcement is about more than just headlines. It also includes the quieter work of supervision, market oversight and proactive detection. - A whole-system response is crucial. Regulators, law enforcement and industry need to work together to close the gaps criminals rely on. * * * I’ve been practising law for over 3 decades now. Starting out, I thought every case would be like the ones on US television: dramatic, with a big reveal and resounding outcome, all packed into a single 30-minute episode. But real law looks nothing like television. Hollywood doesn’t show the months, if not years, of work before we even step into a courtroom. Or the drawn-out disclosure exercises! Like many of you, I have had cases that led to high-profile trials and newspaper headlines. Cases that exposed wrongdoing and visibly held people accountable, like: - Fining Nationwide £44m for anti-money laundering failings. - Securing €250m for investors from H2O Asset Management for their due diligence failures – and trying to conceal them. - Another 7-figure fine and a ban for former Barclays CEO Jes Staley, who tried to mislead us about the nature of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. - And convicting the Korfuzi siblings of insider trading, with a combined 11-year prison sentence. Although these cases took time, they were the right response – the kind that keep the system clean and build trust. But running alongside this is work that, while less obvious, matters just as much: the quiet prevention of harm. Every day, our teams are monitoring market integrity. Looking for a sign that something is wrong, long before it becomes visible to anyone else. Reviewing financial promotions and taking down misleading adverts before they reach consumers. And working alongside firms to help them deliver good customer outcomes. This kind of work is perpetual. And largely invisible. Let me give you an example. A life sciences company was attempting to raise funding. When we reviewed the prospectus, we realised it resembled a pump-and-dump scheme we were tracking that had already targeted other UK securities. The proposed structure would have concentrated shares in the hands of a few bad actors, who could artificially inflate the share price through misleading online ads. They would then cash out at the peak, leaving consumers exposed when the price suddenly collapsed. So we stepped in and put a pause on approval. Soon after, the company announced it was ending the fundraising entirely. We had cut harm off at the root. And yet… there was no press release. No headline. Does that concern you? Or does it reassure you? ## Changing threat, changing model I think it should do both. The threat we are facing is more complex than ever. Technology, including AI, is accelerating the pace and scale of financial crime. And we have to give these criminals their dues: they are prolific innovators. They’re not standing still, waiting for us to catch up. They’re moving faster than traditional law enforcement can respond. Making the threats we are up against cheap, fast and invisible. And while essential, traditional enforcement is expensive, slow and highly visible. That imbalance – that gap – is where harm occurs. And if we are going to close it, we need to adapt. Law enforcement has the 4 Ps: - Prevent. - Pursue. - Protect. - Prepare. We’re doing a lot of pursuing: 42 outcomes in 2024, another 38 in 2025, and as of June 1st, 18 so far this year. And we’re moving faster than ever before. Since July 2024, 10 investigations have reached a public outcome within 16 months or less. It’s promising to see whistleblowing disclosures up 20% in the past year – helping us to stop harm earlier. But we regulate more than 40,000 firms, supervise 1,720 listed issuers, and receive 35m transaction reports every day. It’s impossible to pursue all instances of harm in the same way. We have to do more of the ‘prevent, protect and prepare’. ## Cutting off harm at the root So we are being more visible about the ways we fight crime and tackle harm. That includes bringing to light the no-man’s land between ‘doing nothing’ and launching a full enforcement investigation. We are increasingly using the credible threat of enforcement to do so. Driving earlier intervention with our supervisory tools, market oversight and proactive detection. And doing it faster – in weeks, rather than months or years. The life sciences company I mentioned earlier terminated fundraising less than 2 weeks after we paused the prospectus. That’s not a coincidence. Had we approved the prospectus, it would have left investors at risk of significant losses, and undermined the confidence and integrity of the market. But it isn’t always a rogue operator working behind the scenes. When we looked under the bonnet of an authorised firm providing electronic money services, we found exactly the kind of harm we exist to prevent. Inadequate client files, high-risk clients downgraded wrongly and without explanation, and others simply waved through – including one subject to a multi-million dollar fine. We imposed an Own Initiative Requirement (OIREQ): no new customers or funds, and a return of what they were holding, effective immediately. The firm didn’t challenge our decision, and we were able to stop the harm quickly and quietly. No fine or prosecution needed. OIREQs are so effective because they’re immediate. We can freeze assets, require firms to pay redress, stop them taking on new clients or shut them down entirely, at speed. But an OIREQ sits at one end of a much broader spectrum. Sometimes it’s a conversation, letter or targeted visit. When a cryptoasset firm repeatedly failed to display the right risk warnings, we engaged until the issues were fixed. A feedback letter and voluntary requirement were all it took to shut down a claims management company’s [misleading motor finance promotions](https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=0010X00004MlGzfQAF#what-can-this-firm-do-restrictions "Financial Claims Helpline Limited: what this firm can do | Financial Services Register"). In most cases, that kind of early intervention is enough. Further along the spectrum, we have skilled person reviews. In one recent case, we found serious wea