Crispin Odey, founder of Odey Asset Management, faced cross-examination this week at the Upper Tribunal in London as the Financial Conduct Authority's three-week case against him approached its close. FCA barrister Clare Sibson KC confronted Odey with text messages he sent to a woman he had assaulted, asking her to consider the consequences for his firm before cooperating with investigators.

Dispatch

LONDON, 25 MARCH 2026 — City AM reported from the courtroom as Odey faced the FCA barrister's questioning:

In text messages shown in court sent to a woman, Odey said: Really sorry… the FCA is pursuing a vendetta against both OAM and myself and you are being used by them to show that there were no controls and you were in fear of my position in the company, which stopped you from speaking out. I'm truly sorry for embarrassing you so long ago but I do not think that it is reason enough to close down OAM and call me unfit and improper, they may want to call you.

City AM, Maria Ward-Brennan, 25 March 2026

The FCA barrister asked Odey directly: Are you trying to manipulate this woman into silence? Odey denied the allegation. Sibson KC pressed further: Do you think that the victim of a sexual assault wants to hear that?

Earlier in the trial, Odey's former CEO Tim Pearey testified under interview conditions with the FCA. City AM reported on 10 March 2026:

Tim Pearey stated in an interview with the Financial Conduct Authority: I think he's a sex pest I'm afraid… I think he's got a real problem. I think he finds it hard to control himself actually. Pearey, who resigned in 2022, acknowledged to the watchdog that he realised a bit too late that Odey was a sex pest.

City AM, Maisie Grice, 10 March 2026

What's Really Happening

The FCA sanctioned Odey in March 2025 for lack of integrity — the ban and £1.8 million fine stem not only from the sexual misconduct allegations themselves, but from Odey's conduct during the investigation: using his 98.5% majority shareholder stake to dissolve OAM's executive committee and appoint himself as sole member hours before a disciplinary hearing was due to proceed ^[1]

A Simmons & Simmons investigation identified at least 46 allegations of inappropriate conduct spanning 2003 to 2020, including a sexual assault claim — the scope of the internal inquiry was itself triggered by the 2023 Financial Times and Tortoise Media investigation into Odey ^[2]

Odey admitted under cross-examination to groping his PA's breasts, attributing the incident to sedation from a dentist's appointment — a framing the FCA barrister challenged as inconsistent with the pattern of documented behaviour ^[1]

The text messages revealed in court are the most operationally significant evidence: they establish that Odey was aware of specific witnesses and contacted them prior to the tribunal, a conduct that Sibson KC characterised as witness manipulation ^[1]

Odey's own formulation — I didn't have many weapons, did I? — was read back to him in court; it directly contradicts his stated position that his shareholder actions were defensive rather than strategic ^[1]

The Real Stakes

The Upper Tribunal is the final forum in which Odey can reverse the FCA penalty before his ban becomes permanent. A loss here forecloses his return to financial services under his own name in the United Kingdom. He has simultaneously filed a defamation case against the Financial Times seeking a minimum of £79 million in damages, scheduled for June 2026, alongside five personal injury claims from women alleging misconduct.

The FCA's case is explicitly constructed around integrity — not merely the underlying conduct — making it harder to appeal on procedural grounds. By arguing that Odey's shareholder actions plunged the firm deeper into a regulatory and governance crisis ^[3], the regulator is documenting a pattern of governance subversion rather than relying solely on the contested sexual misconduct claims.

For the broader financial services sector, the FCA's willingness to use non-financial misconduct as grounds for a lifetime ban signals a material shift in the scope of regulatory scrutiny. The watchdog's characterisation of OAM's culture as containing prolific sexual harassment, normalised as part of the deal for working there, suggests it intends to hold senior executives accountable for institutional culture, not only for personal acts ^[2].

Industry Context

The Odey trial sits at the intersection of two live debates in UK financial regulation. First, the FCA's post-2023 expansion of its conduct remit to include non-financial misconduct — a policy change directly accelerated by the Odey and Nicola Bulley-era media pressure. Second, the question of whether a sole majority shareholder in a private firm can effectively block disciplinary proceedings by restructuring governance at will. The tribunal's judgment will set a precedent on that second question regardless of outcome.

Odey's acquittal on a 1998 criminal indecent assault charge in 2021 — a separate proceeding — does not affect the civil regulatory standard, which requires the FCA to demonstrate the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Impact Radar

Financial Regulation Impact: 9/10 — Sets precedent for FCA enforcement of non-financial misconduct and governance interference at private firms ^[1]

Legal Precedent Impact: 8/10 — Upper Tribunal judgment will determine whether majority shareholders can use governance powers to obstruct internal disciplinary processes

Reputational Impact: 9/10 — Text messages entered into public record; defamation case against FT creates further legal exposure across two simultaneous proceedings ^[1]

Sector Culture Impact: 7/10 — FCA framing of part of the deal culture as an aggravating factor has direct implications for how compliance functions document workplace norms

Policy Impact: 6/10 — Outcome may accelerate FCA's proposed expansion of Senior Managers and Certification Regime obligations to cover culture and conduct oversight

Watch For

1. The Upper Tribunal's written judgment, expected within weeks of the March 26 close of proceedings — if it upholds the FCA ban, Odey's legal options narrow to a judicial review, which carries a high threshold for success

2. The June 2026 defamation trial against the Financial Times: Odey is seeking at least £79 million; a loss there would expose him to substantial costs and potentially validate the original investigative reporting

3. Any FCA policy statement citing this case as precedent for expanding non-financial misconduct enforcement — which the regulator has flagged as an area of strategic priority for 2026-27

Bottom Line

Odey's own conduct during the investigation — dissolving his board, contacting witnesses, and threatening to close the firm — has given the FCA a stronger case than the underlying allegations alone might have produced. The tribunal is not being asked to determine guilt for sexual misconduct; it is being asked whether a man who used his corporate control to obstruct a regulatory process has the integrity to operate in financial services. The text messages make that question significantly harder for Odey to answer.