Barclays has been fined £42 million by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for severe shortcomings in how it handled financial crime risks linked to two high-risk clients: Stunt & Co and WealthTek. The penalty reflects the bank’s failure to act on repeated warning signs and its reliance on outdated and inadequate anti-money laundering (AML) controls, raising serious concerns about oversight at one of the UK’s largest financial institutions.
Case 1: Stunt & Co and the Fowler Oldfield Scandal
Between 2015 and 2022, Barclays classified Stunt & Co—a gold bullion business owned by James Stunt—as low risk. This classification remained unchanged even after significant transactions and red flags were raised, including large deposits from Fowler Oldfield, a jeweller that was later exposed as central to a £266 million money laundering scheme.
Barclays failed to reassess the risk rating of Stunt & Co even after police raids on Fowler Oldfield in 2016. Instead of reviewing its AML stance, the bank continued to facilitate transactions until 2020, when public scrutiny increased due to enforcement action against another bank. In total, Stunt & Co’s Barclays account received £46.8 million from Fowler Oldfield, with Barclays eventually closing the account only after the money laundering case became widely publicized. While several directors of Fowler Oldfield were convicted, James Stunt was acquitted.
Case 2: WealthTek and Client Account Oversight
In 2021, Barclays opened a client money account for WealthTek without conducting proper due diligence. The firm was not authorized to hold client funds, a fact that could have been easily confirmed through the Financial Services Register. Barclays allowed the account to operate, with £34 million flowing through it before action was taken. The firm’s principal, John Dance, was later charged with laundering £64 million and fraud in December 2024.
As part of remediation, Barclays agreed to a voluntary £6.3 million repayment to protect affected clients. The FCA, while acknowledging Barclays’ cooperation and remedial efforts, highlighted the failure to act swiftly despite clear red flags.
FCA’s Response and Regulatory Message
The FCA stated that Barclays had “acted recklessly” in its classification and monitoring of both clients. While the bank received credit for cooperating and taking steps to fix its systems, FCA enforcement head Therese Chambers stressed that financial institutions must be proactive in identifying and responding to risks. She warned that banks have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the financial system by acting promptly when problems arise.
Industry-Wide Implications
This is not the first time Barclays has been penalized for AML-related issues. Past enforcement actions in 2015 and 2022 suggest a broader pattern of deficiencies. The FCA’s enforcement sends a clear signal: regulatory tolerance for inaction or procedural weakness is shrinking. The £42 million fine, while reduced from a potential £60 million due to settlement and cooperation, underscores the financial and reputational cost of AML failings.
What This Means Going Forward
Barclays will now be under pressure to overhaul its risk assessment protocols, client onboarding processes, and transaction monitoring systems. Other institutions will likely follow suit, accelerating investment in advanced compliance frameworks.
The message to the banking sector is clear: effective AML systems are not optional. In a landscape where financial crime is increasingly complex, regulators are demanding vigilance, transparency, and accountability—and are prepared to penalize those who fall short.
Barclays has stated its commitment to improving financial crime controls and confirmed that it has strengthened internal processes as part of its response. However, this case will remain a benchmark in the FCA’s regulatory history, emphasizing the importance of active, not reactive, compliance in the financial world.
