Banque Havilland plan to manipulate the Qatari riyal, 2017-2026

The Banque Havilland plan to manipulate the Qatari riyal, 2017-2026 was a private bank document that proposed manipulative trading intended to devalue the riyal, break its United States dollar peg and harm Qatar's economy. The UK Upper Tribunal upheld findings that Banque Havilland, Edmund Rowland and Vladimir Bolelyy acted without integrity in creating and disseminating the plan. It did not find that Mubadala requested, endorsed or sought to implement it, that a state directed it or that the plan was executed.

Legal record current to 29 July 2026.

Strategic classification

The plan proposed offensive denial and coercion through market operations, price leverage and information. Its documented objective was economic harm, but its state nexus and wider strategic purpose remain contested. The case belongs in the main sequence only as a failed or unimplemented private enablement proposal at the boundary of statecraft. It is not an adjudicated United Arab Emirates campaign.

Adjudicated conduct

The controlling merits record is *Rangecourt SA and others v Financial Conduct Authority*, released on 3 February 2026. The Upper Tribunal upheld findings that the bank created and disseminated a plan designed to devalue the Qatari riyal, break its peg and damage Qatar's economy. It also found that Edmund Rowland sought to impress Mubadala in the hope of future financial benefit. The Financial Conduct Authority's account records a £4m penalty against the bank and penalties and prohibitions against the 2 individuals.

The adjudication has firm limits. A copy reached a Mubadala representative, but paragraph 14 of the Upper Tribunal decision records no evidence that anyone connected with Mubadala requested, endorsed or sought to implement the strategy. The Tribunal made no adverse finding against Mubadala. The earlier Banque Havilland decision notice supplies the regulator's statutory case and account of the proposed mechanics, but the Upper Tribunal decision controls where the records differ. The Financial Conduct Authority found no implementation, and the Tribunal record does not establish execution.

Separate New York allegations

Qatar separately alleged manipulative conduct by First Abu Dhabi Bank and Samba Financial Group. Those proceedings produced no merits finding that the alleged trades occurred or were state-directed. The 2020 federal decision concerned remand for lack of federal jurisdiction and accepted pleaded facts only for that procedural motion. The 2022 New York decision records that Qatar discontinued its claim against First Abu Dhabi Bank and dismissed Samba for lack of personal jurisdiction. Neither outcome adjudicated the truth of the alleged manipulation.

The Banque Havilland regulatory case and the New York allegations therefore remain separate. No cited judgment establishes a coordinated multi-bank conspiracy, Saudi direction or United Arab Emirates adoption.

Outcome and assessment

The plan was created and disseminated but not shown to have been implemented. The riyal peg held. The International Monetary Fund's 2018 Qatar report records capital outflows, central-bank liquidity and public-sector support during the diplomatic rift without attributing market conduct to a hostile state.

Effectiveness cannot be assessed as an executed statecraft operation. The case instead demonstrates a proposed mechanism, the evidentiary distance between private planning and state direction, and the regulatory consequences of devising manipulative financial strategies.

See also

Economic statecraft · Currency warfare · Currency-peg attack · Qatar diplomatic and economic embargo (2017-2021) · Banque Havilland · Qatar Central Bank

Sources

• Rangecourt SA, formerly Banque Havilland SA, Edmund Lloyd Rowland and Vladimir Bolelyy v Financial Conduct Authority [2026] UKUT 47 (TCC), decision released 3 February 2026.
• Financial Conduct Authority, 'Upper Tribunal Finds that Banque Havilland Devised a Plan to Harm the Qatari Economy' (3 February 2026).
• Financial Conduct Authority, Decision Notice: Banque Havilland SA (26 April 2023).
• State of Qatar v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC, 432 F. Supp. 3d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
• State of Qatar v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC, 75 Misc. 3d 462, 2022 NY Slip Op 22113 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 13 June 2022).
• International Monetary Fund, Qatar: 2018 Article IV Consultation, Press Release, Staff Report and Statement by the Executive Director for Qatar, IMF Country Report No. 18/135 (2018), https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484358399.002.