A twenty-seven-minute-hearing in criminal proceedings brought by the FCA against the former directors of Collateral (UK) Limited was held earlier today.
Please donate to the Cheese Fund to support crowd-funded journalism of the P2P sector.
Reporting by Daniel Cloake.
Collateral (UK) Limited purported to be a so-called Peer-to-Peer lending firm, which facilitated investments crowdfunded by members of the public.
Collateral (UK) Limited and two related companies entered administration in April 2018.
The two defendants, Andrew Currie, 57, and Peter Currie, 58, both deny two charges under the Fraud Act 2006 and one charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The trial, with an estimated length of 4-weeks, is expected to begin on April 11th 2023.
The mouseinthecourt has been observing and reporting on hearings in this matter, hopefully providing a level of independent oversight to the process.
11th Jan 2022: “FCA commences criminal proceedings against Collateral Directors“
26th Jan 2022: “Collateral Currie brothers appear in court following FCA action“
23rd Feb 2022: “Trial date set for Currie brothers“
17th Oct 2022: “Collateral Currie brothers trial on track as Case Management Hearing held“
11th Nov 2022: “Collateral Currie brothers trial update”
Case management hearings are subject to strict reporting restrictions. What we can say about todays hearing is that:
Both defendants were not required to attend, and did not.
The barristers appeared in person.
Andrew Currie was represented by Oliver Renton
Peter Currie was represented by Ashley Hendron
The FCA were represented by Stuart Biggs
His Honour Judge Martin Griffith ordered that a further hearing should be listed towards the end of January 2023.
Following the conclusion of the trial we can now report:
The hearing did not get off to a good start, with the judge explaining that this was his first day back after the Christmas period, having spent the previous two days on a course.
HHJ Griffith explained that he hadn’t been provided with any of the case files and therefore knew very little about the application being brought today.
“Basically, I haven’t seen anything”
Ashley Hendron, the barrister representing Peter Currie, explained that there was a 63-page case summary in existence. “Shouldn’t I have read that” asked the judge before announcing that “I’m not in a position to deal with [this application] today”.
Stuart Biggs, representing the FCA, said that all the documents “Your Honour has mentioned have been served on the court. The fact that they have not been served on Your Honour is beyond our control….Until just now we didn’t know Your Honour was the trial judge”.
“Well neither did I, until yesterday” remarked the Judge.
Todays hearing is a so-called Section 8 application:
‘If the accused has at any time reasonable cause to believe that there is prosecution material which is required by section 7A to be disclosed to him and has not been, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the prosecutor to disclose it to him.’
Mr Biggs explained that there was a potential problem with the application – that Peter Currie’s legal team wasn’t actually requesting a specific document so he was “not sure what order the defence is seeking”.
Mr Hendron explained that since the original disclosure exercise “we have received almost 200 items of additional disclosure. Some in November, some last night”.Â
We were told the main area of concern was the extent of enquires with a solicitor called Richard Tall. It was explained that Mr Tall had not been called as a witness in this case although he was described as a “central advisor to the issues on the indictment”.Â
It is understood that Mr Tall, described by Mr Hendron as “an industry leader in his field” had charged ÂŁ60k – ÂŁ80k for advice although the quantity of documents that one might expect from a fee of that size had not been forthcoming from the FCA.
“One question is who was the client” as no client engagement letter had been provided. The court was rhetorically asked whether he working for the directors in a personal capacity or for the company. It was explained that the administrators of Collateral UK Limited had waived any privilege in that regard.
“We seek as much context as we can” said Mr Hendron. “The documents generated by Mr Tall, before things became interesting, is not as interesting as we would have hoped… Remarkable that prior to things getting interesting there is an absence of material.”
We were told that Peter Curries defence was that “he relied upon his advisors throughout” and he “did not act dishonestly”.
Mr Biggs said the FCA had asked if there was any more information and “the answer is no… There is nothing more we can do”. The FCA, it was said, wondered what the point would be of a further hearing.
Mr Hendron replied “The reason I ask for a further hearing is we are still reviewing what we have” and he didn’t “want to abandon the Section 8 hearing in the hope that everything has been answered”. He added “I may face criticism if I don’t ask for a further date”.
HHJ Griffith concluded “if you’re still reviewing then it would be a sensible use of listing to list this for a short time later this month so I can get on top of it.
“I think Mr Biggs we will try one more time”
The court adjourned until January 26th 2023.
Case details:
Court 10 Southwark Crown Court
Before His Honour Judge Griffith
11th January 2023 10.00am
Application Hearing
Case number: T20220056
CURRIE Andrew
CURRIE Peter
Mouse in the Court 
One thought on “FCA Collateral Case – January Update”