The Tribunal heard the application of Joerg Vogt, who alleged FCA’s Final Notice relating to Deutsche Bank’s misconduct in respect of interbank rates (IBOR) identified him in a way that caused him prejudice and which he had no opportunity to contest, and thereby breached s393 FSMA. FCA conceded there had been some prejudice but did not accept that, even if Mr Vogt was identified in the Final Notice, each and every matter in the notice that identified him was prejudicial to him nor that the remedies he sought were all within the power of the Tribunal to give. The Tribunal’s judgment dealt only with the question of identification. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal said that the question should be determined on whether the reasonably well informed reader would be able to work out the identity of the individual referenced without resorting to significant analysis. The Tribunal felt there was nothing in the Final Notice itself or the related published correspondence in relation to linked US investigations that would have allowed a “relevant reader” to make the connection to Mr Vogt. The only material that would have allowed the link was material from a German court some months before. The Tribunal was not convinced the material had in any event been public, but felt that, even had it been public, for a relevant person to have read it, remembered it and then connected it with the Final Notice was unlikely. On that basis, it rejected Mr Vogt’s application. (Source: Tribunal decides on identification in IBOR case)