(1)A person who is neither an authorised person nor, in relation to the regulated activity in question, an exempt person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)describes himself (in whatever terms) as an authorised person;
(b)describes himself (in whatever terms) as an exempt person in relation to the regulated activity; or
(c)behaves, or otherwise holds himself out, in a manner which indicates (or which is reasonably likely to be understood as indicating) that he is—
(i)an authorised person; or
(ii)an exempt person in relation to the regulated activity.
(2)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(4) But where the conduct constituting the offence involved or included the public display of any material, the maximum fine for the offence is level 5 on the standard scale multiplied by the number of days for which the display continued.
Cases considering section 24 (3)
[2024] UKUT 229 (TCC) · 5 August 2024
Registering third-party websites as Promethean’s trading names created a misleading appearance that consumers were dealing with an authorised firm. The Tribunal found that this was in breach of section 24. (see para [109])
[2023] EWHC 1184 (Ch) · 19 May 2023Interprets
The court analysed the offence of holding out or behaving as if authorised or exempt. Read as a whole with its defence, the offence was considered to have an essential nature involving deception and therefore to be a related offence under section 13 of the Fraud Act 2006. (see paras [159]-[160], [175]-[177])
The court treated the reasonable-precautions and due-diligence defence as part of the overall analysis of the offence’s essential characteristics rather than as a separate consideration detached from the offence. (see paras [175]-[177])
[2024] EWHC 1174 (KB) · 17 May 2024
The court referred to section 24 as creating an offence concerning unauthorised persons holding themselves out as authorised or exempt. It used the provision only in the privilege analysis and made no finding of contravention.
What each judgment says about section 24 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
67.This creates an offence of falsely describing oneself, or holding oneself out, as authorised or exempt in relation to a particular regulated activity. It is a defence for a person accused of this offence to prove that he exercised due diligence and took all reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence.
68.Under subsection (3) a person found guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to a maximum of 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000). If the offence results from the public display of material, subsection (4) permits a fine of up to the statutory maximum (currently £5,000), to be multiplied by the number of days for which any material giving rise to the offence was on public display.