Crispin Odey has devoted a significant portion of the preceding week endeavoring to persuade a London court that he was the primary “casualty” in the demise of his investment fund, attributing culpability to nearly all others for its ruin, among them the oversight body and his erstwhile senior staff.
The sole individual the 67-year-old financial magnate appears to deem largely innocent is himself, notwithstanding facing over 46 claims of sexual molestation from women employees, in addition to allegations presented in legal proceedings concerning fabricating corporate records, deceiving shareholders, extorting the supervisory authority, intimidating associates, and attempting to hush up complainants.
Even based on his personal testimony, he conceded that his conduct might portray him as an “unsettling elderly gentleman” at the presently defunct investment firm he established, Odey Asset Management.
Odey was present daily throughout the three-week tribunal, frequently appearing at London’s Rolls Building aboard an electric bicycle, donning a sapphire suit, rose-hued necktie, and his characteristic suspenders, in his endeavor to annul a £1.8mn penalty and prohibition levied by the Financial Conduct Authority the previous year.
When questioned by Clare Sibson KC, counsel representing the FCA, whether he had been “intimidating” his senior staff into refraining from implementing safeguards for his women employees, he denied this assertion, stating: “It never occurred to me that I had sexually molested anyone, save for one individual”.
However, the supervisory body presented the court with graphic accounts of multiple grievances regarding Odey’s purportedly improper conduct directed at receptionists and other women associates at Mayfair-situated OAM, which he established in 1991.
Odey confessed during the hearing to fondling the chest of a woman co-worker while they were unchaperoned in the workplace in 2005.
Nevertheless, he informed the tribunal that the woman had “received my contrition” and “evidently did not pursue the matter”. He further stated he was affected by a dental tranquilizer during that period.
The woman remained employed there for several years, primarily in a separate location from Odey, as heard by the court. She subsequently recounted that he offered an apology and withdrew after her outcry.
Approximately half of the 46 accusations leveled against him originated from two front-desk staff in their twenties employed by his investment firm. One, whom Odey labeled “an appealing young woman”, was purportedly trapped in a passageway by him following an alcoholic luncheon, with him uttering “I am capable of assaulting you currently”, as per a portion of her journal presented in court. The other front-desk employee was characterized as “unfashionable” by Odey, who frequently implored her to acquire “superior” attire and proposed accompanying her on shopping excursions.
Within his sworn declaration, Odey conveyed a degree of contrition, stating he felt “ashamed by the accusations”. He asserted: “It became apparent to me that I erred. It was inappropriate for employees to experience discomfort due to my conduct.”
Nevertheless, he frequently adopted an altered demeanor during the cross-questioning sessions this week.
“I was actually the sufferer in this situation,” he informed the tribunal, following an inquiry into his aggressive demeanor during a phone conversation with the FCA soon after dismissing his board of directors for the initial time out of two instances, intending to prevent them from conducting a disciplinary inquiry concerning the sexual molestation claims.
He informed the tribunal that his actions of engaging in flirtatious behavior with front-desk staff, providing them with shoulder rubs and extending lunch invitations, were merely “to put them at ease”. Characterizing himself as an “archaic figure”, he asserted: “Among the improper notions was the conviction that a person in their mid-twenties would harbor any interest in a man of sixty. That constituted an elderly man’s fantasy, a foolish one.”
Sibson charged Odey with attempting to “coerce into quietness” the individual harmed by his 2005 aggression, a claim he rebutted upon being presented with a text message he dispatched to her, cautioning that the FCA was “conducting a personal campaign” against both his firm and him personally.
An erstwhile benefactor to the Conservative Party and proponent of Brexit, who achieved renown by wagering against British financial institutions during the 2008 economic downturn, Odey experienced a loss of prestige subsequent to the FT delineating claims of sexual molestation and attack directed at him from several women employed by OAM or who had social or vocational interactions with him.
Five women have initiated civil claims for personal harm against him in a legal proceeding slated to commence in June. Odey refutes the allegations and has launched a defamation suit against the FT concerning its coverage.
Throughout the court proceedings, Odey exhibited moments of wit, eliciting mirth in the tribunal upon being queried if he considered it an affront to remark to an FCA representative “your manner of speech resembles that of a legal practitioner”, to which he rejoined: “A profound affront.”
However, testimony was presented to the court from erstwhile associates concerning Odey’s disposition.
“I was experiencing intense justifiable anger,” he declared when questioned about his disparaging remarks towards a regulator during a phone conversation, clarifying that subsequent to establishing his enterprise over three decades, “the peril did not emanate from financial markets but from the regulatory bodies whom I presumed were meant to support me”.
Erstwhile associates recounted how Odey would habitually menace to shut down the company should they endeavor to remove him due to the accusations. Timothy Pearey, OAM’s erstwhile chief executive, characterized him as a “sexual nuisance” and a “psychopath” possessing a “significant issue” in his demeanor towards females.
Odey retorted that Pearey acted with “deceit” subsequent to Pearey deliberating strategies with the regulator for establishing a fresh enterprise to assume OAM’s operations in the event of Odey’s removal.
From the perspective of the FCA, Odey’s judicial contest represents a pivotal examination of its capacity to compel senior personnel to answer regarding what numerous individuals contend persists as a pervasive atmosphere of bias, intimidation, and molestation across various sectors of the City of London.
A recent inquiry involving over 1,000 firms conducted by the FCA revealed a two-thirds increment in disclosures of non-monetary impropriety throughout the British financial industry, where 7.2 occurrences were registered per 1,000 staff members in 2023, an increase from 4.2 occurrences in 2021.
The supervisory body did not initiate proceedings against Odey concerning the sexual molestation claims directed at him, but instead focused on his purported conduct subsequent to these allegations.
This subtle distinction highlights the FCA’s challenge when addressing such matters, ever since the court determined it was erroneous to prohibit a financial consultant in 2021 solely predicated on his criminal conviction for child sexual exploitation.
The supervisory body has aimed to bolster its capacity for intervention following the declaration of fresh regulations the previous year pertaining to non-monetary impropriety, encompassing sexual molestation, set to become effective in September.
Nonetheless, concurrently, Odey’s legal matter will depend upon his response to his company’s efforts to sanction him concerning the purported impropriety directed at women employees.
The three-member committee presided over by Justice Sir Nicholas Thompsell will be tasked with determining if the FCA’s conclusion that Odey was “negligent” in violating its regulations was correct, and if he exhibited “a deficit of probity” by endeavoring to impede senior staff’s attempts to probe his conduct.
Nathan Willmott, a partner specializing in conflict resolution at Ashurst, a legal firm headquartered in the UK, and who bears no involvement in this specific matter, remarked: “Although the particulars of this incident are genuinely extraordinary, the proceeding underscores the fundamental perils for enterprises should they neglect to guarantee that matters of organizational culture and behavior are expeditiously examined and addressed suitably.”
Odey asserts he was compelled to undertake extreme measures to preserve his investment fund, which he was certain would have necessitated closure if senior management had removed him due to coercion from the supervisory authority.
He charged the FCA with transforming him into their “celebrated case” in their drive to confront non-monetary impropriety within the City of London, following governmental appeals to address the #MeToo campaign.
He penned in his sworn declaration: “I regrettably became, I apprehend, a public emblem for the authority’s objectives.”
Additional reporting by Alistair Gray in London