Channel Island Finance Limited, Scott Greaves Carré and Jason Paul Cook

The Financial Services Business (Enforcement Powers) (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 (“the Enforcement Powers Law”)

The Lending, Credit and Finance (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2022 (“the Lending, Credit and Finance Law”)

Channel Island Finance Limited (“the Firm”)

Scott Greaves Carré (“Mr Carré”)

Jason Paul Cook (“Mr Cook”)

On 25 June 2025, the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“the Commission”) decided:

1. To impose a financial penalty of £21,000 on Mr Carré under section 39 of the Enforcement Powers Law;

2. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Carré from holding any supervised role for a period of 7 years;

3. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 in respect of Mr Carré for a period of 7 years;

4. To make an order under section 33 of the Enforcement Powers Law prohibiting Mr Cook from holding any supervised role for a period of 2 years and 1 month;

5. To issue a Notice under section 32 of the Enforcement Powers Law disapplying the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of The Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors, etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2020 in respect of Mr Cook for a period of 2 years and 1 month; and

6. To make this public statement under section 38 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The Commission would have imposed a financial penalty in the sum of £175,000 on Mr Carré had it not been for his impecuniosity.  The Commission was concerned that the imposition of such a financial penalty would have adversely affected Mr Carré’s creditors or potential creditors.  Accordingly, a financial penalty of £21,000 was imposed.

The Commission considered it reasonable and necessary to make these decisions having concluded that the Firm materially contravened the Lending, Credit and Finance Law and the Enforcement Powers Law; that Mr Carré had materially contravened the Enforcement Powers Law and that Mr Cook and Mr Carré were not fit and proper persons, having regard to the Minimum Criteria for Licensing set out in Schedule 4 to the Lending, Credit and Finance Law.

Background

The Firm provided lending to retail and commercial customers, as well as loan broking services.  The Firm’s lending was funded by loans from a third party, Person A.  The Firm’s customer loan repayments were assigned to Person A.

The Firm was previously registered under The Registration of Non-Regulated Financial Services Businesses (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 2008.  Following the commencement of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law, the Firm applied for a licence as a credit business.  The Firm was granted discretionary exemptions pending the determination of its application under section 40 of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law.  The discretionary exemptions were subject to a number of conditions.

The Firm’s application for a licence was refused in November 2023 and further discretionary exemptions were granted in order for the Firm to wind-down its lending business.

The Commission’s investigation commenced in September 2024 when concerns were raised that the Firm was not complying with the conditions of the discretionary exemptions granted to it.

Findings

The Commission’s investigation found that the Firm had materially contravened section 40 of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law and section 7 of the Enforcement Powers Law.  The investigation also found that Mr Carré had materially contravened sections 7 and 109 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

The investigation also found that Mr Carré and Mr Cook are not fit and proper persons.

In particular the Commission found:

Use of Person A’s Loan Proceeds

Person A lent funds to the Firm on the basis that each loan made by the Firm to customers would be under £2,000.  Mr Cook later confirmed to Person A that they were continuing their policy of only writing loans under £2,000 and brokering out the larger loans.  However, at that time the Firm had already made loans significantly in excess of £2,000.  Mr Cook was aware of these larger loans when he told Person A they were continuing their policy of only writing small loans.  Mr Cook’s statement to Person A was misleading.

A large proportion of the funds lent by Person A to the Firm were paid out to Mr Carré, or lent to Company B and Business C, which were owned by him.  Where funds were lent to Company B, a significant portion of the funds were often immediately paid out of Company B to Mr Carré.

Neither Mr Carré nor Mr Cook could adequately explain how Mr Carré’s obvious conflicts of interest, in lending funds to Mr Carré’s own businesses, were managed.  There was a lack of documentation on how the loans were approved and by whom.  This failing was exacerbated by the fact that Mr Carré was the sole signatory on the Firm’s bank accounts.

As a result of the lack of controls, Mr Carré was able to abuse his position at the Firm to loan his other businesses significant sums.  To date, the loans have not been repaid.

Contravention of Conditions of Discretionary Exemptions

A condition of the discretionary exemption granted to the Firm in August 2023 prevented it from taking further loans from Person A without the written consent of the Commission.

However, the Firm took a further loan from Person A without the written consent of the Commission in September 2023.  Mr Carré and Mr Cook both knew that the Firm could not accept further funds from Person A but accepted the funds anyway.

Following the refusal of its licence application under the Lending, Credit and Finance Law, a condition of the discretionary exemption required the Firm to provide an update to the Commission should it deviate from the repayment schedule provided to the Commission for Person A’s loans (“the Person A Repayment Schedule”).

The Firm never made payments in accordance with the Person A Repayment Schedule and no update was provided to the Commission.  Instead, the Commission was required to repeatedly ask the Firm for confirmation as to whether payments had been made in accordance with the Person A Repayment Schedule.

The contravention of the conditions of the discretionary exemptions was a material contravention of section 40 of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law by the Firm.

False and/or Misleading Statements

When the Commission asked Mr Carré if the loan to Company B had been repaid, Mr Carré confirmed, in writing, that it had.  Subsequently, Mr Carré provided a list of loans to the Commission with the loan to Company B shown as repaid. 

However, Mr Carré later admitted that the loan had not been repaid.  The investigation found that the statement that the Company B loan had been repaid and the list of loans provided by Mr Carré were deliberately misleading.

Mr Carré provided a list of loans made to the Firm to the Commission in November 2023, including those made to the Firm by Person A.  However, the list did not include the further loan from Person A in September 2023 that was provided in contravention of the discretionary exemption of August 2023.  The Person A Repayment Schedule was provided to the Commission in December 2023 and again did not include the further loan from Person A in September 2023. 

Mr Carré admitted that the Person A Repayment Schedule was deliberately misleading and the investigation found that Mr Carré knew the list of loans provided in November 2023 was also deliberately misleading, as this hid the contravention of the condition of the discretionary exemption granted in August 2023.

In July 2024, the Commission asked Mr Carré to confirm the cash balance of the Firm that was available to make a repayment to Person A.  Mr Carré stated that the Firm had £200,000 available to repay to Person A.  However, when the Commission asked Mr Carré to evidence this, it was apparent that the Firm did not hold £200,000.  Mr Carré subsequently admitted that his statement was untrue.

The provision of false and/or misleading information to the Commission, on numerous occasions, by Mr Carré, was a material contravention of section 109 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

Failure to Comply with Statutory Notices

As part of the investigation, the Commission served a Notice under section 7 of the Enforcement Powers Law on the Firm requiring the production of documents, including copies of all correspondence with Person A regarding repayment of their loan. 

Person A also provided copies of correspondence with the Firm regarding repayment of their loan to the Commission.  However, the correspondence provided by Person A included correspondence not provided by the Firm in response to the Notice.

The Commission also served a Notice under section 7 of the Enforcement Powers Law on Mr Carré requesting the production of documents relating to the loans to Company B and Business C.

Mr Carré failed to produce all of the documents requested in the Notice on a number of occasions despite being reminded on numerous occasions.

The failure to comply with the Notices, without reasonable excuse, was a material contravention of section 7 of the Enforcement Powers Law.

Mr Carré

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Carré failed to fulfil the fit and proper criteria set out in Schedule 4 of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law, as he failed to demonstrate that he acted with probity, competence and soundness of judgement.

For example, Mr Carré:

• Provided false and/or misleading statements to the Commission on numerous occasions;

• Failed to comply with a statutory Notice;

• Knowingly accepted a further loan from Person A when he knew this would be in breach of the conditions of the discretionary exemption granted in August 2023; and

• Abused the lack of controls and his position at the Firm to benefit himself by making significant loans to Company B and Business C.

Mr Cook

The Commission’s investigation identified that Mr Cook failed to fulfil the fit and proper criteria set out in Schedule 4 of the Lending, Credit and Finance Law, as he failed to demonstrate that he acted with probity, competence, soundness of judgement and diligence.

For example, Mr Cook:

• Knowingly provided false and/or misleading information to Person A regarding the size of the loans being provided by the Firm;

• Knowingly accepted a further loan from Person A when he knew this would be in breach of the conditions of the discretionary exemption granted in August 2023; and

• Failed to ensure that he approved the loans to Company B and Business C, so as to manage Mr Carré’s conflict of interest, when he was aware that Mr Carré was the owner of both Company B and Business C.

Aggravating Factors

Mr Carré received a substantial financial benefit from the contraventions, in particular in making loans to his other businesses, which, to date, remain outstanding.

There was a significant risk of financial loss to Person A due to the Firm’s failure to repay their loans.

The contravention of the conditions of the discretionary exemption of August 2023 by accepting a further loan from Person A was deliberate.

The misleading statements made to the Commission by Mr Carré were deliberate.

The Commission relies on licensees and individuals to conduct themselves in a manner that is open and honest.  The Commission does not have the resources to verify all of the information that is provided to it and nor should it have to.  Therefore, the provision of false and/or misleading information to the Commission is treated as an extremely serious matter.

Mitigating Factors

Person A’s loans have now been repaid.  However, these were repaid by a third-party, not the Firm.

Mr Cook did not benefit financially from the contraventions.

Mr Cook was often not present at the Firm for legitimate reasons, leaving Mr Carré as the sole effective executive director. 

No financial penalty was imposed on Mr Cook and the financial penalty imposed on Mr Carré was reduced due to their financial positions.

Mr Cook co-operated fully with the Commission throughout the investigation. 

The Firm, Mr Carré and Mr Cook agreed to settle at an early stage of the process and this has been taken into account by applying a discount in relation to the sanctions.