According to the defence, this sentence was “based on an incorrect figure of loss and failed to reflect that this was a case of risked rather than actual loss”.
It also said it failed to “reflect the mitigating factors of the appellant's good character, and the evidence of pensions experts who spoke in glowing terms of the appellant's commitment to his investors and his probity”.
It is also submitted that the period of disqualification, eight years, was too long on “a true analysis of the appellant's criminality”.
But the yesterday's decision cemented Say’s conviction, with the court ruling that the trial had been fair.
Accordingly the appeal against the sentence of six years imprisonment and disqualification order was dismissed.
What do you think about the issues raised by this story? Email us on FTAletters@ft.com to let us know