CJA 1993 and UK MAR still split the insider-dealing case

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the National Crime Agency arrested three people on October 13, 2026, but an arrest does not decide whether anyone committed insider dealing. Criminal liability still sits in Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the civil prohibition sits in Article 14 of the United Kingdom Market Abuse Regulation, and the two tests are not the same.

The FCA press release is the news peg, not a charge sheet. It says more than 100 FCA and National Crime Agency staff searched five residential premises in London and Manchester, and that investigators seized more than 30 phones, laptops and tablets. The three suspects were being interviewed by the FCA at police stations in those cities. None is named. This piece sets out section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, Article 14 of the United Kingdom Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR), and the different tests in the United States and the European Union. Other market-integrity files sit on the regulation desk.

Key facts

• October 13, 2026: three arrests with the National Crime Agency against a suspected organised criminal group, for insider dealing and money laundering. Five premises in London and Manchester.
• Same release: four insider-dealing convictions in 2025/26, two called record sentences totalling 11 years, and 12 people fined £1.77 million.
• T20237010, July 4, 2025: six years for Redinel Korfuzi and five years for Oerta Korfuzi under section 52(1), plus four and a half years concurrent under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 327.
• Sentenced on 13 trades. Profits £973,115.93. No confiscation order that day. Comments, paragraphs 19 and 63.
• In force March 1, 1994 (SI 1994/242). 10 years only for an offence on or after November 1, 2021. Earlier offending stays at seven years (Financial Services Act 2021, section 31).
• January 27, 2026: £52,731 on Dipesh Kerai for Article 14(a), and £56,000 on Bhavesh Hirani for Articles 14(a) and 14(c), under section 123 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
• Adopted Article 30: at least €5,000,000 for a natural person, and at least €15,000,000 or 15 percent of turnover for a legal person.

Methodology and sources

The criminal text is section 52, section 56, section 57 and section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, commencement order SI 1994/242, and section 31 of the Financial Services Act 2021. The civil prohibition is Article 14 and Article 8, read with the Hirani Final Notice annex, which quotes section 123 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The power to prosecute is section 402.

Related:FSB letter puts Cross-border Vulnerabilities before the G20

The United States row uses the 2023 United States Code at 15 U.S.C. 78j, 78ff and 78u-1, plus Rule 10b-5 and Rule 10b5-1 in the Code of Federal Regulations, as set out by the Legal Information Institute. The European Union row uses adopted Article 30 and Article 39. The window is those statute pages, the comments of July 4, 2025, the notices of January 27, 2026 and the release of October 13, 2026. Where the release is silent, this article is silent.

What section 52 and Article 14 actually prohibit

Section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 is the United Kingdom's criminal insider-dealing offence. An individual who has information as an insider is guilty if, in the circumstances in section 52(3), he deals in price-affected securities, encourages another person to deal, or discloses the information otherwise than in the proper performance of his employment, office or profession. Section 52(3) limits those circumstances to a regulated market, reliance on a professional intermediary, or dealing by a person who is himself a professional intermediary. Section 57 requires that he know the information is inside information and know that he has it from an inside source. The offence came into force on March 1, 1994. On indictment, section 61(1)(b) states a maximum of a fine or ten years' imprisonment, or both, but section 31(3) of the Financial Services Act 2021 preserves seven years where the offence was committed before November 1, 2021.

Section 56 requires information on particular securities or an issuer, specific or precise, not public, and likely to have a significant effect on price. Price includes value. For encouraging only, section 52(2)(a) adds knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the dealing would fall inside section 52(3). Dealing itself has no such element. Section 57(2) limits an inside source to a director, employee or shareholder, to access through employment, office or profession, or to someone who took the information from such a person. England and Wales need section 61(2) consent. Outside Scotland, section 402 lets the FCA institute proceedings. The release states neither.

The Hirani Final Notice uses another definition. Article 7(1)(a) is precise, non-public information likely to have a significant price effect, and Article 7(4) tests that effect by what a reasonable investor would use. Article 8(4) covers boards, shareholders, access through employment, profession or duties, and criminal activity. Only the residual category says "knows or ought to know". Article 10(1) bars disclosure outside the normal exercise of employment, a profession or duties.

How the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union compare

Sources: sections 52 and 61; SI 1994/242; Financial Services Act 2021, section 31; UK MAR Articles 8 and 14; Hirani Final Notice; Kerai Final Notice; 17 CFR 240.10b-5; 17 CFR 240.10b5-1; 15 U.S.C. 78ff; 78u-1; Articles 30 and 39, as adopted. Last updated: October 16, 2026.

Article 14 of the United Kingdom Market Abuse Regulation is the civil prohibition, and it is not a copy of section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. A person shall not engage or attempt to engage in insider dealing, recommend or induce another person to do so, or unlawfully disclose inside information. Article 8(1) treats insider dealing as possessing inside information and using it by acquiring or disposing of the related financial instruments, for one's own account or for a third party. Cancelling or amending an order placed before the person had the information also counts. The prohibition says person, not individual, so it is wider than section 52. Section 123(1)(a) and 123(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as set out in the Financial Conduct Authority's Final Notice annex, allow a penalty of such amount as the Authority considers appropriate. On January 27, 2026 that power produced a penalty of £52,731 on Dipesh Kerai for a breach of Article 14(a).

Rule 10b5-1(a) needs a breached duty of trust or confidence, which section 57 does not. Article 30 floors the maximum at, among other figures, €5,000,000 for a natural person. Section 123 states no euro figure, and only an individual can commit section 52. The National Crime Agency searched with the FCA on October 13 and is not named as prosecutor. Section 31(4) dates a multi-day offence from its first day, which this release does not give.

"Insider dealing is a serious threat to the integrity of our markets. Working with partners, we will continue to use all the powers at our disposal to crack down on serious and organised crime groups engaged in market abuse."

— Steve Smart, executive director of enforcement and market oversight, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA press release, October 13, 2026)

It is not a finding against the three people arrested that morning.

What T20237010 and the Bidstack notices show about enforcement

In T20237010, the comments of HHJ Milne KC on July 4, 2025 record convictions of Redinel Korfuzi and Oerta Korfuzi for conspiracy contrary to section 52(1) and under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Redinel Korfuzi was an investment analyst at Janus Henderson from the beginning of 2019, wall-crossed on placings. The court sentenced 13 trades, profits £973,115.93: six years and five years, with four and a half years concurrent. The seven-year maximum applied because the conduct, including a home arrest on March 24, 2021, predated November 1, 2021. No confiscation figure was verified. The release does not name this case when it cites 11 years.

The Kerai and Hirani notices of January 27, 2026 are section 123 penalties. On December 10, 2021 Hirani, interim chief financial officer of Bidstack Group Plc, and Kerai bought 1.3 million shares on inside information, in Kerai's name. A 2pm announcement was followed by a rise of more than 125 percent. Potential profit was £28,075. Kerai realised £9,260.74. Fines of £52,731 and £56,000 are net of a 30 percent stage 1 discount from £69,260 and £80,000. Kerai's figure is profit, interest and £42,000 at step 5. Interest is not stated alone. Hirani's notice adds unlawful disclosure under Articles 10(1) and 14(c). It calls AIM, the Alternative Investment Market, a multilateral trading facility under Article 2(1)(17) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565. The Dolfin penalty report is a separate file.

What this means for brokers, venues, fund managers and compliance teams

The arrests amend no rule. Section 52(3) makes use of a professional intermediary one circumstance of the criminal offence. It does not make the broker the defendant. Section 57 still has to be proved against the individual. Article 14 can reach the firm itself if the firm deals or discloses.

The Hirani annex quotes Article 2(1)(b) only: instruments traded on, or admitted to, a UK, Gibraltar or EU multilateral trading facility. That is not the whole of Article 2. A venue is a person under Article 14, not an individual under section 52, so the criminal case sits with staff. The FX-derivatives reporting decision amends neither test.

For a fund manager, section 57(2)(a)(ii) and Article 8(4)(c) both catch information gained through employment. T20237010 describes wall-crossing and household accounts. Access plus knowledge can complete section 52, and "ought to know" is not in limb (c). For an issuer, the Hirani notice is an Article 10(1) disclosure, not a section 52 charge. A search establishes neither offence.

"This case should never have been brought. There was no evidence that Ms Almeziad knew anything about insider dealing, and it is wrong to expect ordinary people to understand or spot complex financial conduct that even professionals struggle with. We hope the FCA will take greater care before prosecuting people who, like our client, were simply misled by others."

— Roger Sahota, partner, Berkeley Square Solicitors (Berkeley Square Solicitors, June 20, 2025)

He is speaking about Dema Almeziad, not October 13. The firm says a jury acquitted her of conspiracy to commit insider dealing and money laundering. The sentencing comments do not record that verdict, and the firm's dates and job description do not match them, so those details are left out. Section 57 remains the point. A name on an account is not knowledge.

What is still open after the October 13 arrests

The FCA said it cannot comment further. There is no charge, plea, court date or restraint figure, and interviews were under way at police stations in London and Manchester. Section 31(4) dates an offence over two or more days from the first day. That day is unpublished, so neither custodial maximum can be chosen. The release is also silent on section 61(2) consent and on section 402.

Article 14 on legislation.gov.uk still states the prohibition. A note on that page, not yet applied, records revocation by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, Schedule 1, Part 1. The FCA nevertheless fined under Article 14 on January 27, 2026. No confiscation sum after July 4, 2025 was opened for T20237010. The United States texts used here remain section 10(b), Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1, and sections 32 and 21A. An earlier insider-trading trial report does not replace them, and the 2028 transaction-reporting consultation does not amend section 52 or Article 14.

TL;DR

On October 13, 2026 the Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency arrested three people and searched five homes in London and Manchester. The regulator has not named the suspects, the securities or any profit, and an arrest is not a conviction. Criminal insider dealing remains section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, in force since March 1, 1994, with a ten-year maximum on indictment only for an offence on or after November 1, 2021. The civil prohibition is Article 14 of UK MAR. Section 123 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 allows a penalty of such amount as the Authority considers appropriate. On January 27, 2026 it fined Dipesh Kerai £52,731 and Bhavesh Hirani £56,000. In Crown Court case T20237010 the sentences imposed on July 4, 2025 were six years and five years.

FAQ

What did the FCA and the National Crime Agency announce on October 13, 2026?

On October 13, 2026 the FCA and the National Crime Agency arrested three people for suspected insider dealing and money laundering. More than 100 staff searched five premises in London and Manchester and seized more than 30 phones, laptops and tablets. Interviews were at police stations there. The release names no suspect and states no profit. The FCA said it cannot comment further. An arrest on those facts is not a charge or a conviction.

Does an arrest prove insider dealing?

No. The release stops at arrest and interview. A conviction would require section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and section 57: the individual knew the information was inside information and knew its source was inside. Steve Smart's comment is about market integrity and partners. It finds no fact against the three people. Berkeley Square Solicitors says another jury acquitted Dema Almeziad of conspiracy in a different prosecution.

What prison term can a criminal insider-dealing case carry?

Section 61(1) allows six months, or a statutory-maximum fine, or both, on summary conviction. On indictment it allows a fine, or 10 years, or both, only from November 1, 2021. Section 31 keeps seven years for an earlier offence. In T20237010 the judge applied seven years and passed six years and five years. The October 13 release has no date, so neither maximum attaches.

How is the UK MAR prohibition different?

Article 14 binds a person: no engaging or attempting, no recommending or inducing, and no unlawful disclosure. Section 52 binds an individual and requires actual knowledge under section 57. Article 8(4) has a residual "ought to know" category which section 52 does not copy. Section 123, in the Hirani annex, allows such amount as the FCA considers appropriate. The January 27, 2026 notices are fines, not prison sentences.

What did the FCA impose on Dipesh Kerai and Bhavesh Hirani?

On January 27, 2026 the FCA fined Dipesh Kerai £52,731 and Bhavesh Hirani £56,000. Before a 30 percent stage 1 discount the sums were £69,260 and £80,000. Kerai's penalty includes profit of £9,260.74, interest and £42,000. Interest is not split out. The notices concern 1.3 million Bidstack shares bought on December 10, 2021. The price rose by more than 125 percent. Stated potential profit was £28,075.

What sentence was passed in T20237010?

On July 4, 2025 at Southwark Crown Court, HHJ Milne KC sentenced Redinel Korfuzi to six years and Oerta Korfuzi to five years for conspiracy contrary to section 52(1). Each also received four and a half years concurrent under section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The 13 trades used for sentence made £973,115.93. He made no confiscation order and said an inquiry would follow. No later recovery figure was verified here.

How does the United States deal with insider trading?

Section 10(b) bans a manipulative or deceptive device on a purchase or sale if it breaks a Commission rule. Rule 10b-5 is that rule, and Rule 10b5-1(a) applies only where a duty of trust or confidence is breached. A willful violation can bring, under section 32(a), not more than $5,000,000 or 20 years, or both, for a natural person, and not more than $25,000,000 otherwise. Section 21A(a)(2) limits the civil penalty to three times the profit or loss avoided.

This article is informational analysis only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, or investment advice. Regulatory frameworks change frequently and interpretation depends on facts and circumstances; primary documents and official regulator guidance always supersede summaries. Firms should consult qualified legal counsel and their relevant supervisory authority before taking any action based on the analysis above.