I have an article on Comment is Free at the Guardian today:

One of the most basic objectives of regulation in the financial services sector is that consumers be protected from unscrupulous operators. In the parlance of the Financial Services Authority everyone who is regulated must be approved as a "fit and proper" person. You can see the reason: this is the sector where many a con-man has parted the innocent from their money.

I have been a regulated person in my time with regard to my work as a practising chartered accountant. I spent hours completing forms to declare that I had no convictions for fraud, had never been bankrupt, had kept my affairs in good order, and more besides. And quite right, too. Despite that, as has become all too apparent in the cases of Bernie Madoff and Sir Allen Stanford, those who look somewhat less than fit and proper slip through the net of regulation. This then raises the inevitable question: "How did that happen?"

I'm afraid that the answer is "all too easily". Let's take another example from the news last week. UBS, the multinational Swiss bank, agreed to pay $780m (£547m) to the US authorities last week to avoid a criminal prosecution for helping thousands of wealthy Americans avoid tax byhiding their money in secret bank accounts. Now, let's not beat about the bush: UBS did not pay this because it believed it was innocent of all charges levelled against it. It did so because it was apparent it admitted breaking American law by participating in a scheme to defraud the US revenue service. And the US Department of Justice is now requesting data from UBS in Switzerland on 52,000 cases of suspected tax evasion, as if any further evidence were needed. And yet I've not heard anyone in the UK ask: "So why is UBS still trading here?"

Well, I am doing just that. I worked hard to make sure I kept my affairs in order to advise the public. And I'm not saying that everyone who makes a mistake should be put out of business, even when it comes to financial services. Nor does the FSA. It says in its guidance on being a "fit and proper person" that in determining a person's honesty, integrity and reputation, "the FSA will have regard to matters including, but not limited to, those set out [below] which may have arisen either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere." As the FSA makes clear, a person does in this case include a company. So, it is immediately obvious that UBS as a whole may be considered a person, and matters outside the UK may be taken into account in the FSA's assessment of UBS's status.

So, what else does the FSA consider? There are 13 criteria that it notes, including "whether the person has been convicted of any criminal offence" with "particular consideration … given to offences of dishonesty, fraud, financial crime or an offence whether or not in the United Kingdom or other offences under legislation relating ... money laundering." Which is a touch unfortunate for UBS: tax evasion is money laundering.

But it's true, UBS has not been found guilty of any offences: it has paid to avoid prosecution. Criterion No 2 might apply then, which says the FSA will asses "whether the person has been the subject of any adverse finding or any settlement in civil proceedings, particularly in connection with investment or other financial business, misconduct, [or] fraud". Again, it's not looking good for UBS. Nor is No 5 much help, as it says the FSA will consider "whether the person has contravened any of the requirements and standards of the regulatory system or the equivalent standards or requirements of other regulatory authorities … or government bodies or agencies".

None of these may be enough, you might say, to stop UBS trading here in the UK. But let's be clear, what it does here is not dissimilar to what it was doing in the US. As UBS makes clear on its own website relating to its activities in the UK, it is mainly selling tax haven products. It says: "Our offer includes more than 3,000 investment funds licensed for distribution in Jersey." And its contact addresses for its UK operations are given as London, St Helier and Zurich - an odd definition of a "local presence", which is the heading used to describe these locations.

Now, I'm not saying UBS is doing something wrong as a result. But the FSA's job should, I think, be to protect the public from harm, to protect the profession from harm and to protect the state from harm. Through its involvement in this scheme to defraud the US revenue service, UBS has done harm to all three in the US. So, my question is simple. Given that the UK operation of UBS seems to be managed from Switzerland to sell tax haven funds into the UK market, which is an operation that seems not unlike that of UBS's American arm, then why isn't the FSA doing the following two things now? The first is announcing a review to ensure UBS is still a "fit and proper person". The second is a review to make sure UBS is complying with the requirements of UK law - and that all tax is being paid.

Isn't this what any reasonable person would expect right now from our regulator? So why has nothing been said?