A number of factors made Shell’s abuse of the market ‘particularly serious’, according to the regulator’s findings.
This included the false announcements made about the levels of its oil reserves, despite warnings that its figures were ‘false or misleading’.
Andrew Procter, director of enforcement at the FSA, said: ‘The FSA views timely and accurate disclosure to shareholders and markets as fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the UK’s financial markets. The size of the penalty in this case reflects the seriousness of Shell’s misconduct and the impact it had on markets and shareholders.
‘The swift resolution of this case was made possible by the excellent co-operation the FSA has enjoyed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.’
Shell has co-operated fully with the FSA’s investigation, said the regulator, and this is ‘reflected in the size of the penalty which would have been significantly higher were it not for the company’s efforts’.
Although the FSA’s investigation into the Shell’s misconduct is now closed, investigations into other aspects of this matter are ongoing.
Does Darwin's theory apply to taxation? Colin ponders...
The EC has been instructed to draft a European Union (EU) directive authorising an EU financial transaction tax, which would apply to ten of the EU’s 28 member states
Accountancy watchdog the FRC has dropped its investigation into the former chief financial officer of Tesco, nearly two years after the supermarket was engulfed in an accounting scandal
Colin imagines how Apple's logo might change in the wake of the EC's ruling over its Irish tax arrangements