What criminal charges and court rulings have emerged from investigations into LCF executives and their advisers?

1. High Court: civil liability, Ponzi finding and detailed judicial findings

In a landmark Chancery Division judgment the High Court found that LCF “operated as a Ponzi scheme” between 2013 and 2018, concluding that former CEO Michael Thomson and director Spencer Golding — together with several associates — were personally liable for losses after breaching fiduciary duties, making misrepresentations to investors and misappropriating funds, with the court recording findings of fraudulent trading, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt ^{[1] [3] [2]}. The judge’s 335‑page ruling described systematic misrepresentations and the use of new investor money to meet payments to existing bondholders, and the administrators are seeking tens of millions in damages from the named defendants ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Criminal investigations: SFO probe, ongoing prosecutions and scope

Separate from the civil litigation, the Serious Fraud Office has conducted a criminal investigation into the collapse and sale of LCF mini‑bonds; that probe remains ongoing and has led to criminal charges and enforcement measures, though the full slate of indictments and trials has not been exhausted in public reporting ^[3]. Reporting makes clear the SFO is actively investigating individuals linked to LCF and has previously taken criminal steps connected to restraint orders and account freezes tied to that inquiry ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Concrete criminal outcomes so far: restraining order breach and admissions

One concrete criminal outcome already public is that Thomson received a 10‑month prison sentence suspended for two years after breaching a restraining order on his bank account, a sentence handed down in May 2023 as part of SFO‑related criminal proceedings; the court found he had spent nearly £100,000 of frozen funds on luxury items ^{[1] [2]}. More recently, the former LCF boss and his wife admitted breaching a court order imposed during the SFO investigation, a development reported by Law360 in January 2026 that underscores ongoing criminal enforcement activity tied to asset restraints ^[4].

4. Allies, alleged facilitators and civil accessory findings — and defendants’ position

The High Court also named associates — including Paul Careless, John Russell‑Murphy and Robert Sedgwick — as having provided assistance that compounded the directors’ dishonesty, and ordered them liable for investor losses alongside the main executives ^[1]. Those civil accessory findings sit alongside the defendants’ denials: the trial record shows the defendants have denied wrongdoing in the civil proceedings, and criminal investigations have not yet culminated in publicised convictions against all alleged facilitators ^{[5] [1]}. The joint administrators’ pursuit of more than £177.5 million in damages and the separate public challenge by LCF bondholders to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme over compensation decisions reveal competing legal and financial agendas beyond criminal liability ^{[2] [6]}.

5. What remains unresolved and why the distinction between civil rulings and criminal charges matters

While the High Court’s civil verdict establishes liability, remedies and large‑scale restitution claims, it does not itself equate to criminal convictions for the full cast of defendants; the SFO’s criminal probe could yet produce prosecutions in the Crown Court, but public reports show a mixture of admissions, a limited sentencing outcome to date and ongoing investigations rather than a completed criminal sweep ^{[3] [4] [2]}. The civil findings — fraudulent trading, knowing receipt and dishonest assistance — strengthen prosecutorial prospects, but reporting indicates a partly parallel path: administrators seek recovery through civil damages while criminal authorities weigh indictments and enforcement of restraint orders ^{[3] [2] [4]}.