FCA Charges Solicitor With Insider Dealing Over Acquisition

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has charged Richard Bloomfield with five counts of insider dealing, alleging that he traded on confidential information obtained through his professional role.

According to the FCA, Mr Bloomfield was working as a solicitor at a law firm on the acquisition of Seraphine Group PLC. It is alleged that he used inside information acquired through that work to deal in the securities of Seraphine Group PLC on five occasions between 28 March 2022 and 10 January 2023. Insider dealing is an offence under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

Mr Bloomfield appeared before Westminster Magistrates' Court and gave no indication of plea. The case was sent to Southwark Crown Court, where he is next due to appear on 5 August 2026, and he has been released on unconditional bail. The FCA has confirmed that it is not investigating the law firm or Seraphine Group PLC in connection with the case.

The allegations are a reminder that the individuals with the earliest and cleanest sight of price-sensitive information are frequently not employees of the issuer at all, but the professional advisers around a transaction. Deal teams in legal, corporate finance and advisory firms sit inside the insider perimeter from the moment they are instructed, often well before any public announcement, and controls designed to manage that exposure are only as effective as their enforcement.

For firms operating within the market abuse regime, the case underlines the importance of well-maintained insider lists, restricted trading and pre-clearance arrangements that reach every person with access to deal information, and surveillance capable of flagging personal account dealing that aligns suspiciously with live mandates. It also reinforces the value of a culture in which the obligations attaching to inside information are understood as personal and enduring, not merely procedural.

The matter remains before the courts and the charges are unproven. It nonetheless offers a timely prompt for compliance teams to test whether their own controls would surface comparable activity, and whether coverage extends fully to advisers and secondees who touch confidential transactions.