FSCA warnings about unauthorised and impersonating entities

The FSCA publishes warnings about entities that are not authorised to offer financial services, and about clones that copy a real firm's name or number. This page explains what a warning means, how to read the date, and what the live table shows.

FSCA warnings

The entity or site named and the date the FSCA published the warning.

What an FSCA warning is

An FSCA warning is a public notice that an entity is not authorised, or is impersonating an authorised one. The FSCA issues warnings when it sees a firm or a website that claims a licence it does not hold, or that copies the name or number of a licensed firm. Some warnings are about clones that copy a real firm's name or number. A warning is a regulator's statement; it is not a court finding. It tells the public that the FSCA has looked at the entity and found that it is not on the FSCA's register as an authorised provider.

A warning can be about a firm that has never been authorised, a firm that lost its authorisation, or a firm that is impersonating an authorised one. The FSCA names the entity exactly as it appeared in the material the FSCA saw. The warning may include the name, the website, the phone numbers and the social media accounts the entity used. The FSCA does not say how it came across the entity, and it does not give a full history of the entity's conduct.

The live table and its columns

Above this text sits a live table of FSCA warnings. Each column is a field the FSCA published: the name exactly as the source wrote it, the date the source published it, what the warning concerns, and a link to the original. The table is read from the FSCA's website once a week, and each row carries the date the FSCA published the warning. A row records what the source published, not a finding of ours.

The table quotes no figure and names no entity in prose. The reader can sort the table by date or by name, and can click through to the original warning on the FSCA's site. The original is the authoritative record; the table is a convenience. If a warning is old, the entity may have changed its name or its website since the FSCA published the notice.

Why a warning matters

A warning matters because it tells the reader that the FSCA has already looked at the entity and found a problem. If the reader is considering a platform that appears in the warnings table, the reader should compare the name and the website with the warning. The FSCA warns about entities that claim to be authorised when they are not, and about entities that use a licensed firm's name without permission.

A warning can also matter for a platform that is not in the table. The absence of a warning does not mean the platform is authorised. The FSCA cannot warn about every unauthorised entity, and a platform can operate without a warning against it. The reader should still run the licence check described on the other pages.

How to read the date on a warning

Each warning carries the date the FSCA published it. The date is the day the notice appeared on the FSCA's website, not the day the entity started operating. A warning can be older than the platform's present form: the platform may have changed its name, its website, or its contact details since the warning was published. The reader should compare the details in the warning with the details the platform shows today.

The date also matters because the FSCA can withdraw a warning if it later finds that the entity is authorised. The FSCA does not always announce a withdrawal, and a withdrawn warning may still appear in older copies of the table. The reader should check the FSCA's own site for the current version of a warning.

What a warning does not say

A warning does not say that the entity is a scam or a fraud. It says that the entity is not authorised, or that it is impersonating an authorised one. The FSCA does not use words like scam or fraud in its warnings. The warning is a notice to the public, not a verdict on the entity's conduct. The reader should not conclude that the entity is a scam from the warning alone.

A warning also does not say that the entity will never be authorised. An entity can apply for a licence after a warning, and the FSCA can grant it. The warning is a snapshot of the FSCA's view at the time of publication. The reader should check the current register to see whether the entity has since been authorised.

Where to find the warnings

The FSCA publishes warnings on its website, under a section for warnings or public notices. The warnings are free to read and do not require a login. The FSCA also publishes warnings on its social media accounts, but the website is the authoritative source. This site's table is read from the website once a week.

The reader can search the warnings by name or by date. The FSCA's own search function may be more current than this table, because the FSCA updates its site continuously. If a reader is in doubt, the FSCA's site is the place to check.

A warning stays on the page after the firm changes its name

When the FSCA publishes a warning, it records the name the entity was using at that moment. An unauthorised platform can change its trading name within days, keeping the same website, the same contact details and the same people behind it. The warning does not follow the new name automatically, because the regulator has not assessed it yet. A reader who searches only for the new brand will not see the original notice.

The practical consequence is that a clean search result in the warnings table is not the end of the check. The same operator may have an older warning under a previous name, and the regulator's page will show it only if the search matches that older name exactly. A platform that has renamed itself after a warning is not safer than it was before the warning; the risk has simply moved to a different label.

To work around this, compare the website's domain history, the telephone numbers on the platform and the names of people who answer the phone with the details in any older warning. The FSCA does not publish a cross-reference between old and new names, so the reader has to connect the two. A warning remains a regulator's notice about a specific name at a specific time, not a fingerprint that follows the business through every rebranding.

A clone can borrow a real FSP number without touching the real firm

Impersonation often works by copying a licensed firm's FSP number and legal name, while changing only the website address and the telephone number. The real firm's licence is genuine, and the number will pass a quick search on the FSCA's register. The clone does not need to hack the real firm's systems or steal its identity documents; it only needs to copy the number and name onto a different website.

The danger is that a reader checks the FSP number alone, sees it belongs to a licensed entity, and assumes the platform is that entity. The FSCA's warning table exists to catch exactly this mismatch: the regulator publishes a notice when it becomes aware that a specific website or phone number is using a real firm's details without permission. The real firm may be unaware until the warning appears.

To separate the clone from the real firm, compare every contact detail on the platform with the details on the FSCA's register for that FSP number. A different email domain, a different physical address or a different telephone number is enough to show the platform is not the licensed entity. The FSP number is a starting point, not a complete check, and the warning table records the regulator's notice about the mismatch.

A warning about one entity does not cover its other websites

The FSCA warns about a specific entity, which may operate several websites, several trading names or several different telephone numbers. The warning names the entity as the regulator knows it, but the regulator may not have identified every website the same people run. A reader who checks one website against the warning table and finds no match has not cleared the whole operation.

The same people can run multiple platforms under different names, with different websites and different contact details, and only one of those platforms may appear in a warning. The FSCA publishes what it has identified at the time of the notice, not a complete map of every related operation. A reader who sees a warning about one name should treat other platforms with similar wording, similar design or similar offers as unverified.

This matters because a platform that is warned about under one name can continue to operate under another name without a new warning. The reader's check has to extend beyond the single platform in front of them. Compare the platform's website text, its trading conditions and its payment instructions with any other platform they have seen; if the details match, the warning about one entity is relevant to the other, even if the other is not named in the table.

The gap between a warning and the FSCA's own register

A warning is not a ledger entry. The FSCA publishes warnings on a separate page from its register of authorised financial services providers, and the two do not always move at the same speed. A firm can appear in the warnings table while still showing an old authorised status on the register, because the register updates on its own cycle. The reader who checks only one source sees half the picture.

The practical consequence is an order of operations. Start with the warnings table to see whether the FSCA has already told the public to be careful. Then go to the register to see what the same regulator currently records about that legal entity. If the two conflict, the warning is the newer public statement and the register may be catching up.

A common failure is to treat a clean register search as proof that no warning exists. A clone can borrow the name and FSP number of a genuinely authorised firm, so a register result for that number tells you nothing about the platform in front of you. Only when the exact legal name, FSP number and contact details all match across both tables does the check start to hold.