Market abuse in focus | Stephenson Harwood

Market abuse in focus - The Gerrity case and recent trends

The Financial Conduct Authority continues to make market abuse a top enforcement priority, with a series of high-profile cases and significant penalties in recent years.

The recent Final Notice issued to Russel Gerrity in December 2025 is a timely reminder of the risks posed by insider information, especially when held by third-party consultants, and the risks posed by “off-channel” communications platforms such as WhatsApp.

This article explores the Gerrity case, places it in the context of recent FCA enforcement, and highlights key takeaways.

The Gerrity case

In December 2025, the FCA imposed a financial penalty of £309,843 on Russel Gerrity, a petrophysical consultant, for insider dealing.

As a consultant working in the oil and gas sector, Mr Gerrity’s role gave him access to highly sensitive, non public information about whether oil and gas had been discovered during the drilling of exploration wells. Between October 2018 and January 2022, Mr Gerrity exploited that access for personal gain. Using inside information, he bought shares in Chariot Oil & Gas Limited and Eco (Atlantic) Oil and Gas Plc ahead of public announcements confirming discoveries. These announcements led to increases in share prices. On one occasion he also used inside information defensively, selling shares he already held before an announcement that no oil or gas had been found. This allowed him to avoid losses when the share price subsequently fell.

The FCA has stated that it was first alerted to some of this activity through Suspicious Transaction and Order Reports (STORs). As the investigation progressed, its surveillance systems uncovered further suspicious trading by Mr Gerrity across multiple accounts with different brokers while he was based outside the UK¹. Evidence included WhatsApp messages, highlighting the FCA’s increasing scrutiny of non-traditional communication channels.

The FCA pursued the case under the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR), resulting in a civil penalty rather than criminal prosecution. The insider dealing in this case occurred between 2018 and 2022, but the Final Notice was not issued until December 2025 – an eight-year timespan². At a time when the FCA places emphasis on the speed of enforcement, that timeframe is striking, particularly as the case was not contested ; Mr Gerrity settled the case and received a 30% “Stage 1” settlement discount on the financial penalty imposed.

FCA focus on market abuse: the bigger picture

The Gerrity case is part of a broader pattern. Over the past three years, the FCA has increased its focus on market abuse, with a mix of civil and criminal resolutions. As Therese Chambers, the FCA’s Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, stated: “Our work on market abuse is a critical part of all areas of [our 5 year] strategy. Because cleaner markets instil confidence, which encourages investment into our markets, which encourages growth and innovation. It’s a virtuous cycle.”³.

The FCA’s 2025 Annual Report reinforces this message, highlighting “taking assertive action on market abuse” as one of 13 key commitments.

The FCA has commented that its investigation in this case stemmed from STORs. Therese Chambers commented recently that over 70% of the FCA’s current market abuse investigations originate from STORs⁴.

Recent market abuse cases at a glance

Below is a summary of key FCA market abuse (including insider dealing) cases since that have reached a resolution from 1 January 2023 to date. This table illustrates the range of outcomes, penalties and the sometimes-lengthy timelines from the occurrence of the conduct in issue to resolution.

Case name	Civil or criminal resolution	Penalty	TimeSettled or contested?	Time from first instance of the underlying conduct to the Final Notice (if a civil case) or conviction/acquittal (if criminal)
FCA v NMC Health Plc (in Administration)	Civil	Censured (no financial penalty due to company administration)	n/a	4 years (Conduct between March 2019 and February 2020, Final Notice August 2023)
FCA v Mohammed Zina	Criminal	Imprisoned for 22 months	Contested	8 years (Conduct: between July 2016 and December 2017, Conviction: February 2024)
FCA v Stuart Bayes	Criminal	Imprisoned for 18 months, suspended for 2 years.	Contested	2.5 years (Conduct May 2016 Convicted March 2024)
FCA v Andras Sebok	Civil	£123,500 fine	Settled	5.5 years (Conduct: between April 2019 and November 2020, Final Notice November 2024)
FCA v Matthew West and Nikolas West	Criminal	Matthew West – 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, 200 hours unpaid work and confiscation order Nikolas West – 6 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and confiscation order	Settled – pleaded guilty	Matthew West – 8.5 years (Conduct: November 2016, Conviction/pleaded guilty May 2025) Nikolas West – 5.5 years (Conduct: January 2020, Conviction/pleaded guilty May 2025)
FCA v Redinel Korfuzi and Oerta Korfuzi	Criminal	Redinel Korfuzi - six years’ imprisonment Oerta Korfuzi - five years’ imprisonment	Contested	5.5 years (Conduct between December 2019 and March 2021, Convicted June 2025)
FCA v Jorge Lopez Gonzalez	Civil	£100,000 and prohibition order	Contested	9 years (Conduct June/July 2016, Final Notice August 2025)
FCA v Poojan Sheth	Civil	£57,600 fine and prohibition order	Contested	9 years (Conduct June/July 2016, Final Notice August 2025)
FCA v Diego Urra	Civil	£223,400 fine and prohibition order	Contested	9 years (Conduct June/July 2016, Final Notice August 2025)
FCA v Neil Dwane	Civil	£100,281 fine and ban and prohibition order	Settled	3 years (Conduct October 2022 Final Notice October 2025)
FCA v Russel Gerrity	Civil	£309,843 fine	Settled	7 years (Conduct between October 2018 and January 2022, Final Notice December 2025)

On 26 November 2025 the FCA announced that it had commenced criminal proceedings against Bobosher Sharipov and Bekzod Avazov for insider dealing.

Civil or criminal?

The FCA has discretion to pursue insider dealing either as a civil offence under UK MAR or as a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and often opens market abuse cases on a “dual track” basis.⁵ In the Gerrity case, the FCA opted for a civil penalty, but continues to prosecute other insider dealing cases criminally (for example, the convictions of Redinel and Oerta Korfuzi in June 2025 and the criminal charges brought against Bobosher Sharipov and Bekzod Avazov in November 2025). The rationale for choosing one route over the other is not always clear from publicly available documents.

Key Takeaways

Market abuse is a high priority: The FCA’s strategy and recent enforcement actions make clear that market abuse, including insider dealing, is firmly in the regulatory spotlight. As Therese Chambers noted, “[o]ur strategic focus on financial crime and market abuse are not just words on paper. As one of my colleagues recently said, “the strategy is not just a document, it’s a way of life!””⁶ Firms should expect continued scrutiny.
Controls must go beyond trade surveillance: Effective market abuse controls are not limited to monitoring trading activity. Firms must also ensure robust procedures for controlling access to inside information, especially where third-party consultants or contractors are involved.
Off-channel communications are a growing risk: The Gerrity case featured WhatsApp messages as evidence, a growing trend in FCA enforcement. The FCA’s multi-firm review into off-channel communications highlights the risks posed by unmonitored messaging apps, especially for those with access to inside information. The use of WhatsApp and similar platforms is now a feature of many market abuse cases. Firms should review their policies, ensure staff understand the risks and consider technological solutions to monitor or restrict such communications.
Enforcement timelines can (still) be lengthy: Despite the FCA’s emphasis on faster enforcement outcomes, the Gerrity case demonstrates that even settled civil cases can take many years to resolve. If a speed is a factor in deciding to pursue a civil outcome as opposed to prosecuting, the Gerrity case, when compared with the Korfuzi case (the underlying facts in which ran between 2019 and 2021, and which was contested through 18-week trial at Southwark Crown Court in 2025), shows the civil route is not always materially faster.

¹ FCA fines oil rig consultant £309,843 for insider dealing | FCA
² “Our revised approach to enforcement is speeding up investigation times” – PS25/5, June 2025
³ At the Market Abuse and Market Manipulation Summit in April 2025
⁴ At the Market Abuse and Market Manipulation Summit in April 2025
⁵ See for example the Enforcement Data 2024/25, published on 10 July 2025: “When we are investigating a potential breach that might lead to either criminal, civil or regulatory action, we open those cases on a dual-track basis.”
⁶ At the Market Abuse and Market Manipulation Summit in April 2025

Related Expertise