Brac Saajan Exchange Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 9 June 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 180 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This case concerns appeals by Brac Saajan Exchange Ltd (BSEL) and seven individuals against HMRC decisions cancelling BSEL's AML registration and imposing personal prohibitions or "not fit and proper" findings. The Tribunal found that most alleged breaches were either minor or remedied before cancellation, and that HMRC relied on unreliable or undisclosed spreadsheet analyses and mischaracterised evidence. The Tribunal allowed all appeals, quashed the Cancellation, Personal and Prohibition Decisions, and criticised HMRC's evidential handling and proportionality.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

A supervisory decision to cancel an MSB's registration or to impose personal prohibitions must be supported by reliable, disclosed evidence showing breaches that are consistent, serious and justify such sanctions; minor or remediated failings will not suffice and regulators must apply a proportionate, risk‑based assessment to compliance frameworks and external audits.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The tribunal indicated that a regulator's failure to disclose the analysis it relied upon (for example, undisclosed or erroneous spreadsheets) risks breaching a duty of candour and reduces the weight of that analysis. It also noted that tribunals may order private hearings and anonymisation for sensitive third‑party financial data where disclosure is unnecessary to the core issues.