News
The Whistleblower, the Regulator and the Questions That Remain
— 4 mins read
Simon Andriesz, the trader who exposed Howard Lutnick's links to Jeffrey Epstein, died last month. MPs now want to know how Britain's financial watchdog treated him.
MPs have called for an independent investigation into how the Financial Conduct Authority treats whistleblowers, following the death of Simon Andriesz, the British trader who uncovered evidence of links between US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Jeffrey Epstein.
Andriesz, a former managing director at BGC Partners, the brokerage Lutnick founded and ran before joining the Trump administration, died last month. His family said he took his own life on 23 September and that there is no suggestion of foul play.
His death has turned attention to a question he spent years asking himself: what happens to people who tell the regulator the truth?
What he uncovered
Andriesz's evidence, first reported by the BBC in July, cast doubt on Lutnick's account of his relationship with Epstein. Among it was a 2013 proposal in which Lutnick, in Andriesz's words, sought to "buy a prince". The proposal was a business venture with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor that would use the former prince's contacts to attract investment, in exchange for a £1m loan. BGC says the venture did not go ahead.
Lutnick's public account has already shifted. In October 2025 he said that after meeting Epstein he and his wife decided he would "never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again". Files later released by the US Justice Department showed he took his family to lunch on Epstein's island in December 2012. Questioned by senators, he acknowledged the visit, described his contact as "three times over 14 years" and said he had "done absolutely nothing wrong", NBC News reported.
Andriesz also gave the FCA evidence of alleged misconduct at BGC, including a claim that money from the commission pool set aside for brokers' bonuses had been "embezzled" for improper purposes. BGC denies the allegation.
A whistleblower who was right
What stands out is how much of what Andriesz reported led to action. His information contributed to $3m in penalties from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a $1.4m fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission. In Britain, HMRC issued determinations requiring £96m in tax payments, according to Scottish Financial News.
The United States paid him $420,000 under its whistleblower programme. Britain's financial regulator does not reward whistleblowers.
The United States paid him $420,000 under its whistleblower programme. Britain's financial regulator does not reward whistleblowers.
What went wrong with the FCA?
Andriesz said he had told the FCA about serious allegations as far back as 2018. The regulator says it acted, pointing to a supervision order it issued based on his information. He called that a regulatory "slap on the wrist".
His bigger complaint was about what happened to him afterwards. He sent the FCA evidence of what he considered retaliation by BGC and its lawyers. The regulator concluded there was "insufficient evidence" of retaliation, which he believed weakened his case at employment tribunal. BGC says it has strong whistleblower protections and denies retaliating against him.
There was also a plain error. According to the MPs, the FCA wrongly told Andriesz he had lost his whistleblower protection because his identity had become known. The regulator later apologised and promised extra training for its whistleblowing team.
In July, weeks before his death, he told a meeting of MPs and campaigners that he felt "thoroughly let down". The regulator, he said, "protects the institution and then exposes the whistleblower to extreme retaliation and devastation to their lives and families".
Is this one case, or a pattern?
The FCA's own figures raise wider questions. It received 1,282 whistleblowing reports in 2025. Only 42.5% led to any action, down from 55% the year before, and in the final quarter of the year just 3% led to what the regulator calls "significant action", according to its published data. Seventy-two reports last year alleged that firms had breached the rules meant to protect whistleblowers. The FCA does not publish what happened to those people.
It received 1,282 whistleblowing reports in 2025. Only 42.5% led to any action, down from 55% the year before.
"Whistleblowers may be surprised to see that under half of all their disclosures lead to the FCA taking action," said Andrew Pepper-Potts of the charity Protect, quoted by Compliance Corylated.
Who reviews the regulator?
The FCA has asked Lea Paterson, a former Bank of England director who has just joined its board, to review how it dealt with Andriesz, and says it aims to report by the end of the year.
That is not good enough for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. Its chair, Labour MP John McDonnell, called the death "a profound and preventable tragedy". The group wants the FCA to pay for an independent review instead of "marking their own homework".
Their point is simple. A regulator cannot credibly judge its own treatment of someone who accused it of failing him. If whistleblowers come to believe that speaking up costs more than staying silent, fewer will come forward, and the next scandal will stay hidden for longer.
