The chairman of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Ashley Alder, faced calls to resign following criticism over the regulator’s handling of a whistleblower review after the death of British banker Simon Andriesz. The concerns were raised during the FCA’s annual meeting held in Edinburgh on October 6, where more than 200 people attended in person and hundreds joined online.

Andriesz, 57, who lived in Cornwall, died by suicide last week; no official cause of death has been publicly confirmed. Prior to his death, he had made allegations involving Howard Lutnick, the United States commerce secretary, and Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted American financier and sex offender. Andriesz had expressed feeling “thoroughly let down” by the support provided to him as a whistleblower.

In response, the FCA announced that its whistleblowing operations would be reviewed by Lea Paterson, a non-executive director recently appointed to the FCA’s board. However, this decision prompted significant backlash during the meeting. Paul Carlier, a former foreign exchange trader and whistleblower, urged for an external and independent review to prevent any further tragedies. Similarly, Andy Agathangelou, founder of the Transparency Task Force, of which Andriesz was a member, directly questioned Alder’s ability to safeguard the FCA’s reputation.

Agathangelou asserted that entrusting an internal figure with the review amounted to a conflict of interest and called on Alder to step down. Addressing these criticisms, Alder emphasized that non-executive directors are appointed by the government rather than by the FCA itself. He stressed the board’s independence from the FCA’s executive and assured stakeholders that the review would be conducted with the utmost seriousness.

Simon Andriesz was a former senior employee at BGC Partners, the brokerage firm founded by Lutnick prior to his appointment to the U.S. government by then-President Donald Trump. Following the meeting, Alder reaffirmed the FCA’s commitment to transparency, stating that the findings of the review would be published and rejecting allegations that the regulator was “marking its own homework.” The controversy highlights ongoing concerns about the effectiveness of whistleblower protections within the financial services sector.