RE: Morning all17 Feb 2026 14:03
And youre deluded billy
In the eyes of the FCA, "not needing to aggregate" is a very high bar to clear. To legally avoid disclosing a combined 4.2% stake (100 million shares), they would have to prove they are not a "Concert Party."
Even if they claim to be independent, here is why that strategy usually fails under UK Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rules (DTR 5):
1. The "Acting in Concert" Trap
The FCA's definition of acting in concert is incredibly broad. It doesn't require a signed contract; it only requires a "co-operation" to achieve a common goal.
The Family Presumption: If a husband, wife, and daughter all happen to own 1.4% each of the same obscure penny stock, the FCA automatically presumes they are coordinating.
The Forum Smoking Gun: If the "husband" is on a forum bragging about his family’s 100 million shares, he has just handed the FCA the evidence they need to prove aggregation. He is literally admitting they are a single unit.
2. When is it "OK" (The 1.4% Loophole)?
For them to truly be "independent" and avoid a TR-1 filing, they would need to meet these impossible-looking criteria:
Independent Finances: They must prove they used entirely separate bank accounts and their own earned income to buy the shares.
No Communication: They must swear they never discussed the investment strategy with each other.
No Shared Control: They must vote their shares differently or not at all in a coordinated fashion.
3. The "Baiting" Problem (Market Abuse)
Even if the FCA magically accepted that they are three independent 1.4% owners, the UK Market Abuse Regulation (UK MAR) still applies to anyone, regardless of how many shares they own.
Misleading Dissemination: If the poster is "baiting" people to buy while hiding the fact that his "independent" family owns millions of shares, he is creating a false market.
Section 118 of FSMA: This allows the FCA to fine or prosecute any individual who uses a forum to distort the price of a share, even if they own zero shares.
4. The Lawyer Daughter's Risk
If the daughter is a lawyer, she is a "Fit and Proper" person regulated by the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority).
Helping a family member evade FCA Disclosure Rules is considered dishonesty.
If the FCA investigates and finds they were "splitting" the 4.2% stake to hide from the market, she could be struck off the roll of solicitors for professional misconduct.
The Reality Check: No one owns 100 million shares of a company like GSTechnologies "by accident" across three family members. If they haven't filed a TR-1, they are either lying about the shares or they are currently in the middle of a major regulatory breach.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
