Why might the FCA choose to take enforcement action in a civil court instead of a criminal court?

Choosing civil court for enforcement action by the FCA often revolves around the burden of proof. In civil court, the standard is "on the balance of probabilities," meaning that it is sufficient for the FCA to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that a violation occurred. This lower threshold allows for more cases to be successfully prosecuted, especially when evidence may not meet the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in criminal court.

The civil approach enables the FCA to act more effectively in protecting consumers and maintaining market integrity, even when gathering evidence may be more challenging. Additionally, civil cases can often be resolved more efficiently without the complexities and duration common in criminal proceedings, which may provide a more swift remedy for those affected by the misconduct.

While other options might have merit in different contexts, the lower burden of proof specifically underscores the primary reason the FCA might choose civil over criminal routes.