Burrows was handed the ban by the regulator in December after being found to have avoided fares for five years on his commute from East Sussex to London.
The former BlackRock manager paid back £43,000 to Southeastern Trains following discovery of his fare dodging attempts, but it is the FCA ban which has attracted the CISI’s ire.
Chief executive Simon Culhane argued Burrows should have been suspended, not banned, because his actions did not affect markets directly.
“The penalty is more draconian than those handed to the LIBOR or interest-rate fixers, or those who peddled the toxic PPI products or precipice bonds,” he said.
“It was absolutely right for the Financial Conduct Authority to take action. However, the FCA was wrong in its disproportionate response, which has the whiff of playing to the court of mob rule and lacking in fairness”.
The FCA said at the time that it had implemented the ban “to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers and to protect and enhance the integrity of the financial system.”
“Burrows held a senior position within the financial services industry. His conduct fell short of the standards we expect,” FCA enforcement director Tracey McDermott said in December.
A CISI survey of its members, conducted for its monthly magazine in which Culhane’s comments are made, found more than seven in 10 agreed the FCA was right to take action, though many questioned the severity of its decision.
Nonetheless, 39% strongly agreed the FCA should punish individuals for failings in their private lives, with 32% “tending to agree” with the assertion, according to the FT.
