The Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) issued a prohibition order against Mr Frensham based on his conviction for an offence which did not involve financial fraud or dishonesty and was unrelated to regulated activity. Following a referral, the Upper Tribunal considered such a prohibition for the first time in Frensham v The Financial Conduct Authority  UKUT 0222 (TCC). Although the Tribunal concluded that the conviction alone was insufficient to make a prohibition order, the FCA’s decision was nonetheless upheld due to Mr Frensham’s failure to be open and transparent with the FCA during the course of the criminal investigation and later regulatory proceedings brought by the Chartered Insurance Institute (“CII”), which meant that he lacked integrity. In short, the Tribunal concluded that “it is not the fact that a criminal offence has been committed that is fatal to an applicant’s case but the manner in which he deals with the consequences that follow. In this case, we have found that the way Mr Frensham dealt with those consequences demonstrated a lack of integrity which entitles the Authority to exercise the prohibition power in order to further its statutory objectives”. The Tribunal’s carefully reasoned judgment provides essential guidance both to the FCA and to firms assessing an individual’s fitness under the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (“SMCR”), and more generally under the Individual Conduct Rules (“COCON”), on how non-financial misconduct committed in an individual’s private life, where unrelated to their regulated activity, should be approached. This C&G Client Alert reviews the facts and the law, and analyses key lessons from the case.