Upper Tribunal finds that Banque Havilland devised a plan to harm the Qatari economy

The Tribunal agreed with the FCA that significant fines should be imposed, deciding that fines of £4m, £352,000 and £14,200 were appropriate for Rangecourt SA, Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy respectively. The Tribunal also upheld the FCA’s decision to ban Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy from working in financial services.

Banque Havilland created a plan (initially titled ‘Setting fire to the neighbour’s house fund’) to harm the Qatari Riyal through manipulative trading strategies. The aim was to devalue the Qatari currency and break its peg to the US Dollar, harming the economy of Qatar. Banque Havilland intended to present this manipulative trading strategy to a sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala Investment Company. Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy were instrumental in this deliberate misconduct. Mr Rowland was trying to impress Mubadala in the hope of securing future financial benefit for Banque Havilland and his family. In making its findings the Tribunal held that Mr Rowland lied to both the FCA and in court. He also persuaded Mr Bolelyy to lie. 

Steve Smart, executive director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, said:

'Motivated by greed, Banque Havilland, Mr Rowland and Mr Bolelyy had a plan to seriously damage the Qatari economy. It is right that they have been held to account.'

Notes to editors

1. See the Upper Tribunal judgement,[2] dated 3 February 2026 (which includes two drafts of the plan in the Appendices).
2. Banque Havilland changed its name shortly before the Tribunal hearing began and is now known as Rangecourt S.A.
3. As per our previous press release[3], the FCA decided to fine David Weller £54,000 for his role in the misconduct, and he did not refer that decision to the Tribunal.
4. Warning Notice statement (PDF)[4] published on 1 February 2022.
5. The FCA proposed to fine Banque Havilland £10m, but the Tribunal determined that the fine should be £4m.  
6. David Rowland, exercising third party rights pursuant to section 393 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, referred the Decision Notices of Banque Havilland, Edmund Rowland, Vladimir Bolelyy and David Weller to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that, whilst Mr Rowland did email his father, David Rowland, a copy of the manipulative trading strategy, some of the statements made about David Rowland in Annex B to the FCA’s Decision Notices (which dealt with his representations to the RDC) were not justified. David Rowland’s references were nevertheless dismissed.