Market abuse and financial crime: The FCA is quietly merging two worlds
The FCA’s latest Market Watch feels like another clear signal of something that’s been building for months: the boundary between financial crime and market abuse is dissolving. What were once treated as parallel but distinct regulatory domains are now converging into a single, integrated risk landscape — and the FCA is increasingly explicit about that shift.
The FCA issued one fine relating to market abuse in 2024, five in 2025 and there are already four fines in 2026. Add to this a new skilled person panel (Lot F) for market abuse, which we were delighted to be appointed to, and we have quite a marked uptick in focus from the regulator.
At the centre of this shift is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). ECCTA was designed to help firms share information to combat economic crime – we’ve seen a lot of discussion about how firms can use the legislation to counter financial crime, but Market Watch 85 highlights specifically where the legislation applies to market abuse offences:
Section 89 (misleading statements)
Section 90 (misleading impressions)
Section 91 (misleading statements in relation to benchmarks)
The message is unmistakable: market abuse is not just a conduct issue; it is a form of economic crime, and firms should manage it using the same collaborative, intelligence‑driven approaches used in AML.
This edition reinforces that firms should assess market abuse risk as part of their broader financial crime frameworks, including evaluating whether clients may be using them to facilitate criminal market manipulation. The FCA even highlights that ECCTA can support decisions such as restricting services or exiting relationships — actions traditionally associated with AML risk management rather than market abuse surveillance.
Helpfully it explains the difference between the ‘warning’ condition (taking safeguarding action against a customer due to economic crime risks) and the ‘request’ condition of ECCTA (where a firm requests information about a customer from another firm).
But the most telling moment comes in the penultimate paragraph:
“As part of our routine engagement with firms, we will ask whether and how they are using ECCTA to share this kind of information, and if they face any barriers.”
This is a notable escalation. It echoes what we heard from the FCA at a recent conference – they are considering adding a question about the use of ECCTA to REP-CRIM, firms’ financial crime data return. It signals that the FCA is not merely permitting information sharing — it is expecting firms to use ECCTA proactively, and it will be supervising against that expectation. In other words, information sharing about suspected economic crime, including market abuse is moving from a “nice to have” to a regulatory norm.
Questions to ask yourself
At Avyse Partners, purpose isn’t a buzzword — it’s the point. Everything we do should mean something, drive something, change something. So before you dive into the depths of ECCTA, ask yourself the questions that really matter:
Are you actively using ECCTA to share information at present?
Have you considered how you can use both the ‘warning’ condition and the ‘request’ condition of ECCTA?
What would you say to the regulator if you were asked today how you are using ECCTA to counter the risk of economic crime in your firm?
Have you considered using ECCTA to share information about market abuse as well as other types of financial crime?
As always, for more information or a friendly chat, please get in touch: contact@avyse.co.uk