Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
BCLP logo
  • People People

  • SectorsAviation, Aerospace & DefenseEnergy TransitionFinancial InstitutionsFood & AgribusinessHealthcare & Life SciencesReal EstateRetail & Consumer Products Sports, Media & Entertainment

    View all sectors View all sectors

    Practice areasFinanceInvestigationsLitigationReal EstateRegulation, Compliance & AdvisoryTax & Private ClientTransactions

    View all practice areas View all practice areas

  • News News

    AwardsDiversityPro Bono

    View all News View all News

    Insights Insights

    BlogsPodcastsWebinars

    View all Insights View all Insights

  • Perspectives Perspectives

    Emerging Themes 2026Getting Deals DoneThe Sustainability Imperative Confronting CorruptionClass Actions
    Trending TopicsArtificial IntelligenceThe Corporate Transparency ActTrump Second Term: Legal Tracker
  • Events Events

    Webinars
  • About us About us

    Pro bono & CommunityInclusion & DiversityResponsible Business

    Client stories Client stories

    Media inquiries Media inquiries

  • Careers
  • Locations
  • Subscribe
BCLP logo
People
Capabilities
News & Insights
BCLP logo

Suhail Mayor

Suhail Mayor
  1. People

Suhail Mayor

Suhail Mayor

Associate


London
Suhail Mayor
  1. People

Suhail Mayor

Suhail Mayor

Associate


London

Suhail Mayor

Associate

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4626

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share
  • Biography

Biography

Suhail is an Associate in the Financial Services Disputes and Investigations team, where he advises clients on a broad range of contentious and regulatory matters, with a particular focus on internal investigations and enforcement actions across the financial services sector and wider corporate landscape.

His experience includes supporting clients through complex multi-jurisdictional investigations involving allegations of fraud, market abuse, bribery and corruption, and corporate misconduct. Suhail has worked on matters involving multiple regulators, including the Serious Fraud Office, Financial Conduct Authority, and the National Crime Agency. His work has included drafting self-reports, managing dawn raids, and contributing to whistleblowing investigations and ABC risk assessments.

He also advises various cryptoasset entities, combining technical insight with a clear understanding of the regulatory and operational needs of firms in the sector. His work includes FCA compliance, AML/ABC frameworks, financial promotions, crypto-litigation, and asset tracing; helping clients navigate evolving regimes.

Before joining BCLP, Suhail trained at a leading international law firm, where he gained experience across litigation, tax, corporate transactions, and intellectual property.

Emerging Themes in Financial Regulation & Disputes

We anticipate a pivotal year for investigations and enforcement

Our 2026 forecastIcon: arrow

Spoken Languages

  • English
  • Hindi

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Education

  • University of London-King's College, LL.M., 2021

Related Capabilities

White Collar White Collar

Financial Regulation Compliance & Investigations Financial Regulation Compliance & Investigations

Cryptocurrency & Digital Assets Cryptocurrency & Digital Assets

Litigation & Dispute Resolution Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Special Investigations Special Investigations

Regulation, Compliance & Advisory Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

Business & Commercial Disputes Business & Commercial Disputes

Class Actions & Mass Torts Class Actions & Mass Torts

  • White Collar

  • Financial Regulation Compliance & Investigations

  • Cryptocurrency & Digital Assets

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Special Investigations

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Class Actions & Mass Torts

Related Insights

Insights
Jan 26, 2026

CP25/42: The FCA’s prudential reset for crypto firms

Insights
Jan 26, 2026

FCA CP25/40 explained: What the UK’s new crypto regulations mean in practice

Insights
Jan 26, 2026

FCA CP25/41: Admissions, disclosures and market abuse in crypto

Insights
Nov 04, 2025

Clarity on the FCA’s approach to naming firms under investigation

The High Court’s recent judgment in R (CIT) v FCA [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin) provides critical clarity on the FCA’s powers to name firms under investigation. Upholding the regulator’s decision to publicise its probe into a yet unnamed firm, referred to as “CIT”, the court reaffirmed the legitimacy of the FCA’s “exceptional circumstances” test, rejecting arguments that the regulator had misapplied its Enforcement Guide. This ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of the FCA’s enforcement transparency, following its abandoned proposal to adopt a broader “public interest” test. The judgment not only reinforces the high threshold for naming firms but also delineates the boundaries of judicial oversight, confirming that decisions on exceptionality and desirability rest primarily with the FCA, subject to reasonableness review. For firms navigating regulatory risk, the decision signals a more assertive, but still constrained, approach to public disclosures by the FCA.

Related Insights

Insights
Jan 26, 2026
CP25/42: The FCA’s prudential reset for crypto firms
Insights
Jan 26, 2026
FCA CP25/40 explained: What the UK’s new crypto regulations mean in practice
Insights
Jan 26, 2026
FCA CP25/41: Admissions, disclosures and market abuse in crypto
Insights
Nov 04, 2025
Clarity on the FCA’s approach to naming firms under investigation
The High Court’s recent judgment in R (CIT) v FCA [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin) provides critical clarity on the FCA’s powers to name firms under investigation. Upholding the regulator’s decision to publicise its probe into a yet unnamed firm, referred to as “CIT”, the court reaffirmed the legitimacy of the FCA’s “exceptional circumstances” test, rejecting arguments that the regulator had misapplied its Enforcement Guide. This ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of the FCA’s enforcement transparency, following its abandoned proposal to adopt a broader “public interest” test. The judgment not only reinforces the high threshold for naming firms but also delineates the boundaries of judicial oversight, confirming that decisions on exceptionality and desirability rest primarily with the FCA, subject to reasonableness review. For firms navigating regulatory risk, the decision signals a more assertive, but still constrained, approach to public disclosures by the FCA.
Icon: arrow

Back to top

BCLP logo
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Practice Areas
  • Sectors
  • News & Insights
  • Awards
  • Blogs
  • News & Events
  • Insights
  • Webinars
  • Perspectives
  • Getting Deals Done
  • Emerging Themes
  • The Sustainability Imperative
  • About us
  • Careers
  • Locations
  • Subscribe
  • Legal notices
  • Privacy notice
  • Modern Slavery Act
  • Cookie policy
  • UK Transparency Rules
  • Media inquiries
Icon: linkedin

© 2026 Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP