The Financial Reporting Council has sanctioned audit firm King & King and engagement partner Milankumar Patel over serious failures in the statutory audits of four steel and aluminium companies connected to the GFG Alliance, finding that the firm's heavy financial dependence on the group compromised its independence and objectivity. Announced on 23 June 2026 in a Final Decision Notice under the Audit Enforcement Procedure, the case centres on audits in which the regulator found pervasive ethical breaches driven by fee dependency.
The scale of that dependency is central to the findings. Between 2018 and 2020, King & King was appointed to perform more than 140 audits of companies within the GFG Alliance, an unconsolidated group of commonly owned businesses operating in steel and aluminium manufacturing, trading and renewable energy, with Patel acting as engagement partner and signing the audit reports throughout. The firm recognised more than 30% of its total income from GFG Alliance entities in its 2020 financial year, rising to more than 40% in 2021 — a concentration the FRC found created clear self-interest threats that the auditors failed to identify or manage. The four audits at the heart of the sanction covered Liberty Specialty Steels, Alvance British Aluminium and Liberty Steel Newport for the year to 31 March 2019, and Liberty Performance Steels for the year to 31 March 2020.
The regulator found the failings ran well beyond independence. Patel and King & King adopted what the FRC described as a flawed and artificial approach to the Ethical Standards, producing pervasive breaches across all the audits, and also failed to meet key audit requirements including planning and risk assessment, income and expense recognition, going concern, and financial-statement disclosures. The breadth of the deficiencies — touching the core mechanics of audit as well as its ethical foundations — is what the FRC treated as evidence that the fee dependency had distorted the firm's conduct across its engagements.
The sanctions are correspondingly serious. King & King received a financial penalty of £70,000, reduced to £52,000 for admissions and early disposal, a published Severe Reprimand, and a declaration that the audits did not satisfy the relevant requirements. The firm is also barred from seeking registration on the Public Interest Entity audit register for five years, prohibited from accepting new appointments as auditor to any high-turnover private company for two years, and required to implement firm-wide ethical-compliance training and submit to a monitoring review by the ICAEW. Patel faces a total financial sanction of £326,184 — comprising £288,684 in disgorgement of the financial benefit he derived from the breaches plus a £50,000 penalty discounted to £37,500 — a Severe Reprimand, the withdrawal of his Responsible Individual status, a three-year prohibition on performing or influencing statutory audit work, and a further two-year wait before he may reapply for Responsible Individual status.
The decision speaks directly to one of the most persistent risks in the audit profession. Fee dependency on a single client or group is among the clearest threats to auditor independence, and the proportion of income King & King drew from GFG Alliance entities sits far above the levels at which self-interest concerns become acute. The disgorgement of Patel's personal financial benefit, alongside the prohibitions on his future audit work, points to a regulator willing to strip out the individual gain from compromised audits rather than rely on firm-level penalties alone.
The sanction lands as the FRC sharpens its wider enforcement approach, and the prohibitions on both the firm and the individual set a marker for how it intends to treat fee-dependency failures across the market. The FRC framed the outcome as a clear message to the audit community that such behaviour will not be tolerated, pairing disgorgement with future-conduct restrictions to address both the financial incentive and the risk of recurrence. Whether the case prompts smaller audit firms to reassess their own client-concentration exposure is the broader question it raises, in a market where reliance on a small number of large clients remains a structural vulnerability.
Editor's note: The FRC's findings are against King & King and Mr Patel only. They do not constitute or evidence findings against the GFG Alliance or the audited companies, which were not parties to the proceedings.
More From Finance Monthly: Bank of England Sets Out Systemic Stablecoin Regime With £40bn Issuance Guardrail and 70% Backing Cap
