The former hedge fund boss Crispin Odey has failed in his legal challenge to overturn a lifetime ban from the UK financial services industry, with judges at the upper tribunal confirming he attempted to obstruct investigations into sexual harassment allegations against him. The tribunal upheld the prohibition order on 14 September 2026, while reducing a proposed fine from £1.83 million to £1.53 million.
"We have found that Mr Odey lacked integrity,"the tribunal ruling stated, referring to the Conservative party donor's conduct at Odey Asset Management (OAM) between December 2021 and November 2022.
"Mr Odey is not a fit and proper person and it is reasonable for the authority to have concluded that a prohibition order is appropriate."
How did the harassment allegations emerge?
Multiple allegations against Odey from female members of staff surfaced after OAM initiated an internal investigation into sexual harassment at the business in September 2020. According to Bloomberg's reporting on the March 2026 hearing, the FCA alleged Odey had groped, verbally harassed and inappropriately touched female employees. The tribunal evidence also included allegations that he falsified minutes, misled investors, attempted to blackmail the FCA and threatened staffers.
What actions did Odey take to obstruct investigations?
Odey, who resigned in 2023 after the allegations were reported in the media, took deliberate steps to block executives of his hedge fund from taking action on the harassment claims. He twice fired the entire executive committee (ExCos) in an effort to prevent them from pursuing disciplinary processes.
"He misused his power as controller to remove the ExCos as a means to protect his own interests and attempt to achieve his objectives,"the tribunal ruling said.
According to , Odey's appeal hearing began on 10 March 2026, during which he argued his actions were intended to protect Odey Asset Management during a "crisis of existence." However, the judges found this explanation unconvincing.
What was Odey's defence during the appeal?
The hearing revealed a series of controversial admissions and claims from Odey. He blamed one incident of inappropriate behaviour on the effects of sedatives he had taken following root canal treatment, claiming the woman involved had accepted his apology and continued working for the firm for another eight years. He also stated he did not remember cornering a female employee after a boozy lunch and making an inappropriate remark to her.
The judges were unimpressed by his testimony.
"He has expressed no contrition,"they stated.
"He sees nothing wrong with his approach, and indeed he wrongly sees himself as the victim."
Therese Chambers, the FCA's executive director for enforcement and market oversight, commented on the ruling:
"Mr Odey clearly thought he could act with impunity. He twice sacked those tasked with protecting female employees from his inappropriate behaviour when they tried to hold him to account. He felt the rules shouldn't apply to him and acted to save his own skin. During the hearing he reinvented history, painted himself as a victim and displayed no contrition. That arrogant entitlement and the resulting complete disregard for proper governance means Mr Odey is unfit to work in financial services."
What is the timeline of regulatory action?
The FCA's original Decision Notice was dated 3 March 2025, according to legal analysis from CMS. Odey subsequently referred the notice to the Upper Tribunal to challenge the ban. The tribunal's decision, published on 14 September 2026, brings that challenge to an end.
What happens next?
Beyond the financial services ban, Odey faces further legal proceedings. According to , a joint trial was scheduled for June 2026 involving Odey's libel claim against the Financial Times and personal injury lawsuits from five women. The Judiciary has listed a pre-trial review in Odey's case against the Financial Times for 2 June 2026.
Odey Asset Management ceased trading months after the allegations against him were reported in summer 2023. His legal representatives were contacted for comment on the tribunal's decision but did not respond.
