1 DEPP 6 includes the FSA's statement of policy with respect to the imposition and amount of penalties under the Act, as required by sections 63C(1), 269(1), 93(1), 124(1), 131J(1) 2and 210(1) of the Act.

The principal purpose of imposing a financial penalty or issuing a public censure is to promote high standards of regulatory and/or market conduct by deterring persons who have committed breaches from committing further breaches, helping to deter other persons from committing similar breaches, and demonstrating generally the benefits of compliant behaviour. Financial penalties and public censures are therefore tools that the FSA may employ to help it to achieve its regulatory objectives.

The FSA will consider the full circumstances of each case when determining whether or not to take action for a financial penalty or public censure. Set out below is a list of factors that may be relevant for this purpose. The list is not exhaustive: not all of these factors may be applicable in a particular case, and there may be other factors, not listed, that are relevant.

1. (1)

   The nature, seriousness and impact of the suspected breach, including:

   1. (a)

      whether the breach was deliberate or reckless;

   2. (b)

      the duration and frequency of the breach;

   3. (c)

      the amount of any benefit gained or loss avoided as a result of the breach;

   4. (d)

      whether the breach reveals serious or systemic weaknesses of the management systems or internal controls relating to all or part of a person's business;

   5. (e)

      the impact or potential impact of the breach on the orderliness of markets including whether confidence in those markets has been damaged or put at risk;

   6. (f)

      the loss or risk of loss caused to consumers or other market users;

   7. (g)

      the nature and extent of any financial crime facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the breach; and

   8. (h)

      whether there are a number of smaller issues, which individually may not justify disciplinary action, but which do so when taken collectively.

2. (2)

   The conduct of the person after the breach, including the following:

   1. (a)

      how quickly, effectively and completely the person brought the breach to the attention of the FSA or another relevant regulatory authority;

   2. (b)

      the degree of co-operation the person showed during the investigation of the breach;

   3. (c)

      any remedial steps the person has taken in respect of the breach;

   4. (d)

      the likelihood that the same type of breach (whether on the part of the person under investigation or others) will recur if no action is taken;

   5. (e)

      whether the person concerned has complied with any requirements or rulings of another regulatory authority relating to his behaviour (for example, where relevant, those of the Takeover Panel or an RIE); and

   6. (f)

      the nature and extent of any false or inaccurate information given by the person and whether the information appears to have been given in an attempt to knowingly mislead the FSA.

3. (3)

   The previous disciplinary record and compliance history of the person including:

   1. (a)

      whether the FSA (or any previous regulator) has taken any previous disciplinary action resulting in adverse findings against the person;

   2. (b)

      whether the person has previously undertaken not to do a particular act or engage in particular behaviour;

   3. (c)

      whether the FSA (or any previous regulator) has previously taken protective action in respect of a firm, using its own initiative powers, by means of a variation of a Part IV permission or otherwise, or has previously requested the firm to take remedial action, and the extent to which such action has been taken; and

   4. (d)

      the general compliance history of the person, including whether the FSA (or any previous regulator) has previously issued the person with a private warning.

4. (4)

   FSAguidance and other published materials:

   The FSA will not take action against a person for behaviour that it considers to be in line with guidance, other materials published by the FSA in support of the Handbook or FSA-confirmed Industry Guidance which were current at the time of the behaviour in question. (The manner in which guidance and other published materials may otherwise be relevant to an enforcement case is described in EG 2.)

5. (5)

   Action taken by the FSA in previous similar cases.

6. (6)

   Action taken by other domestic or international regulatory authorities:

   Where other regulatory authorities propose to take action in respect of the breach which is under consideration by the FSA, or one similar to it, the FSA will consider whether the other authority's action would be adequate to address the FSA's concerns, or whether it would be appropriate for the FSA to take its own action.

When deciding whether to take action for market abuse or requiring or encouraging, the FSA may consider the following additional factors:

1. (1)

   The degree of sophistication of the users of the market in question, the size and liquidity of the market, and the susceptibility of the market to market abuse.

2. (2)

   The impact, having regard to the nature of the behaviour, that any financial penalty or public censure may have on the financial markets or on the interests of consumers:

   1. (a)

      a penalty may show that high standards of market conduct are being enforced in the financial markets, and may bolster market confidence;

   2. (b)

      a penalty may protect the interests of consumers by deterring future market abuse and improving standards of conduct in a market;

   3. (c)

      in the context of a takeover bid, the FSA may consider that the impact of the use of its powers is likely to have an adverse effect on the timing or outcome of that bid, and therefore it would not be in the interests of financial markets or consumers to take action for market abuse during the takeover bid. If the FSA considers that the proposed use of its powers may have that effect, it will consult the Takeover Panel and give due weight to its views.

2The factors to which the FSA will have regard when deciding whether to impose a penalty under regulation 34 of the RCB Regulations are set out in RCB 4.2.3 G.

The FSA's rules on systems and controls against money laundering are set out in SYSC 3.2 and SYSC 6.3. The FSA, when considering whether to take action for a financial penalty or censure in respect of a breach of those rules, will have regard to whether a firm has followed relevant provisions in the Guidance for the UK financial sector issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group.

The primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with a firm's regulatory obligations rests with the firm itself. However, the FSA may take disciplinary action against an approved person where there is evidence of personal culpability on the part of that approved person. Personal culpability arises where the behaviour was deliberate or where the approved person's standard of behaviour was below that which would be reasonable in all the circumstances at the time of the conduct concerned.

In some cases it may not be appropriate to take disciplinary measures against a firm for the actions of an approved person (an example might be where the firm can show that it took all reasonable steps to prevent the breach). In other cases, it may be appropriate for the FSA to take action against both the firm and the approved person. For example, a firm may have breached the rule requiring it to take reasonable care to establish and maintain such systems and controls as are appropriate to its business (SYSC 3.1.1 R or SYSC 4.1.10 R), and an approved person may have taken advantage of those deficiencies to front run orders or misappropriate assets.

In addition to the general factors outlined in DEPP 6.2.1 G, there are some additional considerations that may be relevant when deciding whether to take action against an approved person pursuant to section 66 of the Act. This list of those considerations is non-exhaustive. Not all considerations below may be relevant in every case, and there may be other considerations, not listed, that are relevant.

1. (1)

   The approved person's position and responsibilities. The FSA may take into account the responsibility of those exercising significant influence functions in the firm for the conduct of the firm. The more senior the approved person responsible for the misconduct, the more seriously the FSA is likely to view the misconduct, and therefore the more likely it is to take action against the approved person.

2. (2)

   Whether disciplinary action against the firm rather than the approved person would be a more appropriate regulatory response.

3. (3)

   Whether disciplinary action would be a proportionate response to the nature and seriousness of the breach by the approved person.

The FSA will not discipline approved persons on the basis of vicarious liability (that is, holding them responsible for the acts of others), provided appropriate delegation and supervision has taken place (see APER 4.6.13 G and APER 4.6.14 G). In particular, disciplinary action will not be taken against an approved person performing a significant influence function simply because a regulatory failure has occurred in an area of business for which he is responsible. The FSA will consider that an approved person performing a significant influence function may have breached Statements of Principle 5 to 7 only if his conduct was below the standard which would be reasonable in all the circumstances at the time of the conduct concerned (see also APER 3.1.8 G).

An approved person will not be in breach if he has exercised due and reasonable care when assessing information, has reached a reasonable conclusion and has acted on it.

Where disciplinary action is taken against an approved person the onus will be on the FSA to show that the approved person has been guilty of misconduct.

3In addition to the general factors outlined in DEPP 6.2.1 G, there are some additional considerations that the FSA will have regard to when deciding whether to take action against a person that performs a controlled function without approval contrary to section 63A of the Act.

1. (1)

   The conduct of the person. The FSA will take into consideration whether, while performing controlled functions without approval, the person committed misconduct in respect of which, if he had been approved, the FSA could have taken action pursuant to section 66 of the Act and, if so, the seriousness of that misconduct.

2. (2)

   The extent to which the person could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval. The circumstances in which the FSA would expect to be satisfied that a person could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval include:

   1. (a)

      the person had previously performed a similar role at the same or another firm for which he had been approved;

   2. (b)

      the person'sfirm or another firm had previously applied for approval for the person to perform the same or a similar controlled function;

   3. (c)

      the person's seniority or experience was such that he could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval; and

   4. (d)

      the person'sfirm had clearly apportioned responsibilities so that the person's role, and the responsibilities associated with it, were clear.

3. (3)

   The length of the period during which the person performed a controlled function without approval.

4. (4)

   Whether the person is an individual.

5. (5)

   The appropriateness of taking action against the person instead of, or in addition to, taking action against an authorised person. In assessing this, the FSA will take into consideration the extent of the culpability of an authorised person for the person performing a controlled function without approval. For example, a relevant factor may be that an authorised person decided that the person did not need to obtain approval and it was reasonable for the person to rely on the authorised person's judgment.

6. (6)

   The person's position and responsibilities. The more senior the person that performs a controlled function without approval, the more seriously the FSA is likely to view his behaviour, and therefore the more likely it is to take action against the person.

The primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with Part VI of the Act, the Part 6 rules, the prospectus rules or a provision otherwise made in accordance with the Prospectus Directive or a requirement imposed under such provision rests with the persons identified in section 91(1) and section 91(1A) (Penalties for breach of Part 6 rules) of the Act respectively. Normally therefore, any disciplinary action taken by the FSA for contraventions of these obligations will in the first instance be against those persons.

However, in the case of a contravention by a person referred to in section 91(1)(a) or section 91(1)(b)(i) or section 91(1A) of the Act ("P"), where the FSA considers that another person who was at the material time a director of P was knowingly concerned in the contravention, the FSA may take disciplinary action against that person. In circumstances where the FSA does not consider it appropriate to seek a disciplinary sanction against P (notwithstanding a breach of relevant requirements by such person), the FSA may nonetheless seek a disciplinary sanction against any other person who was at the material time a director of P and was knowingly concerned in the contravention.

Persons discharging managerial responsibilities within an issuer and their connected persons, who have requested or approved the admission of a financial instrument to trading on a regulated market, and connected persons have their own responsibilities under the disclosure rules, as set out in DTR 3, for which they are primarily responsible. Accordingly, disciplinary action for a breach of the disclosure rules will not necessarily involve the issuer.

In deciding whether to take action, the FSA will consider the full circumstances of each case. Factors that may be relevant for this purpose include, but are not limited to, the factors at DEPP 6.2.1 G.

The Principles are set out in PRIN 2.1.1 R. The Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of firms under the regulatory system. The Principles derive their authority from the FSA's rule-making powers set out in section 138(General rule-making power) of the Act. A breach of a Principle will make a firm liable to disciplinary action. Where the FSA considers this is appropriate, it will discipline a firm on the basis of the Principles alone.

In determining whether a Principle has been breached, it is necessary to look to the standard of conduct required by the Principle in question at the time. Under each of the Principles, the onus will be on the FSA to show that a firm has been at fault in some way.

The Listing Principles are set out in LR 7. The Listing Principles are a general statement of the fundamental obligations of listed companies. The Listing Principles derive their authority from the FSA's rule making powers set out in section 73A(1) (Part 6 Rules) of the Act. A breach of a Listing Principle will make a listed company liable to disciplinary action by the FSA.

In determining whether a Listing Principle has been broken, it is necessary to look to the standard of conduct required by the Listing Principle in question. Under each of the Listing Principles, the onus will be on the FSA to show that a listed company has been at fault in some way. This requirement will differ depending upon the Listing Principle.

In certain cases, it may be appropriate to discipline a listed company on the basis of the Listing Principles alone. Examples include the following:

1. (1)

   where there is no detailed listing rule which prohibits the behaviour in question, but the behaviour clearly contravenes a Listing PrinciplePrinciple;

2. (2)

   where a listed company has committed a number of breaches of detailed rules which individually may not merit disciplinary action, but the cumulative effect of which indicates the breach of a Listing Principle.

Some types of breach may potentially result not only in action by the FSA, but also action by other domestic or overseas regulatory authorities or enforcement agencies.

When deciding how to proceed in such cases, the FSA will examine the circumstances of the case, and consider, in the light of the relevant investigation, disciplinary and enforcement powers, whether it is appropriate for the FSA or another authority to take action to address the breach. The FSA will have regard to all the circumstances of the case including whether the other authority has adequate powers to address the breach in question.

In some cases, it may be appropriate for both the FSAand another authority to be involved, and for both to take action in a particular case arising from the same facts. For example, a breach of RIE rules may be so serious as to justify the FSA varying or cancelling the firm's Part IV permission, or withdrawing approval from approved persons, as well as action taken by the RIE. In such cases, the FSA will work with the relevant authority to ensure that cases are dealt with efficiently and fairly, under operating arrangements in place (if any) between the FSA and the relevant authority.

In relation to behaviour which may have happened or be happening in the context of a takeover bid, the FSA will refer to the Takeover Panel and give due weight to its views. Where the Takeover Code has procedures for complaint about any behaviour, the FSA expects parties to exhaust those procedures. The FSA will not, save in exceptional circumstances, take action under any of section 123 (FSA'spower to impose penalties), section 129 (Power of court to impose penalties), section 381 (Injunctions), sections 383 or 384 (Restitution) in respect of behaviour to which the Takeover Code is relevant before the conclusion of the procedures available under the Takeover Code.

The FSA will not take action against a person over behaviour which (a) conforms with the Takeover Code or rules of an RIE and (b) falls within the terms of any provision of the Code of Market Conduct which states that behaviour so conforming does not amount to market abuse. The FSA will seek the Takeover Panel's or relevant RIE's views on whether behaviour complies with the Takeover Code or RIE rules and will attach considerable weight to its views.

If any of the circumstances in DEPP 6.2.26 G apply, and the FSA considers that the use of its disciplinary powers under section 123 or section 129, or of its injunctive powers under section 381 or of its powers relating to restitution under section 383 or 384 is appropriate, it will not take action during an offer to which the Takeover Code applies except in the circumstances set out in DEPP 6.2.27 G.

In any case where the FSA considers that the use of its powers under any of sections 123, 129, 381, 383 or 384 of the Act may be appropriate, if that use may affect the timetable or outcome of a takeover bid or where it is appropriate in the context of any exercise by the Takeover Panel of its powers and authority, the FSA will consult the Takeover Panel before using any of those powers.

Where the behaviour of a person which amounts to market abuse is behaviour to which the Takeover Code is relevant, the use of the Takeover Panel's powers will often be sufficient to address the relevant concerns. In cases where this is not so, the FSA will need to consider whether it is appropriate to use any of its own powers under the market abuse regime. The principal circumstances in which the FSA is likely to consider such exercise are:

1. (1)

   where the behaviour falls within sections 118(2), 118(3) or 118(4) of the Act;

2. (2)

   where the FSA's approach in previous similar cases (which may have happened otherwise than in the context of a takeover bid) suggests that a financial penalty should be imposed;

3. (3)

   where the behaviour extends to securities or a class of securities which may be outside the Takeover Panel's jurisdiction;

4. (4)

   where the behaviour threatens or has threatened the stability of the financial system; and

5. (5)

   where for any other reason the Takeover Panel asks the FSA to consider the use of any of its powers referred to in DEPP 6.2.22 G.

The exceptional circumstances in which the FSA will consider the use of powers during a takeover bid are listed in DEPP 6.2.26G (1), DEPP 6.2.26G (3) and DEPP 6.2.26G (4), and, depending on the circumstances, DEPP 6.2.26G (5).

Section 123(2) of the Act states that the FSA may not impose a penalty on a person if there are reasonable grounds to be satisfied that:

1. (1)

   the person concerned believed, on reasonable grounds, that his behaviour did not amount to market abuse or requiring or encouraging; or

2. (2)

   the person concerned took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid engaging in market abuse or requiring or encouraging.

The factors which the FSA may take into account when deciding whether either of the two conditions in DEPP 6.3.1 G are met include, but are not limited to:

1. (1)

   whether, and if so to what extent, the behaviour in question was or was not analogous to behaviour described in the Code of Market Conduct (see MAR 1) as amounting or not amounting to market abuse or requiring or encouraging;

2. (2)

   whether the FSA has published any guidance or other materials on the behaviour in question and if so, the extent to which the person sought to follow that guidance or take account of those materials (see the Reader's Guide to the Handbook regarding the status of guidance.) The FSA will consider the nature and accessibility of any guidance or other published materials when deciding whether it is relevant in this context and, if so, what weight it should be given;

3. (3)

   whether, and if so to what extent, the behaviour complied with the rules of any relevant prescribed market or any other relevant market or other regulatory requirements (including the Takeover Code) or any relevant codes of conduct or best practice;

4. (4)

   the level of knowledge, skill and experience to be expected of the person concerned;

5. (5)

   whether, and if so to what extent, the person can demonstrate that the behaviour was engaged in for a legitimate purpose and in a proper way;

6. (6)

   whether, and if so to what extent, the person followed internal consultation and escalation procedures in relation to the behaviour (for example, did the person discuss the behaviour with internal line management and/or internal legal or compliance departments);

7. (7)

   whether, and if so the extent to which, the person sought any appropriate expert legal or other expert professional advice and followed that advice; and

8. (8)

   whether, and if so to what extent, the person sought advice from the market authorities of any relevant prescribed market or, where relevant, consulted the Takeover Panel, and followed the advice received.

The FSA will consider all the relevant circumstances of the case when deciding whether to impose a penalty or issue a public censure. As such, the factors set out in DEPP 6.4.2 G are not exhaustive. Not all of the factors may be relevant in a particular case and there may be other factors, not listed, that are relevant.

The criteria for determining whether it is appropriate to issue a public censure rather than impose a financial penalty include those factors that the FSA will consider in1 determining the amount of penalty set out in DEPP 6.5 A to DEPP 6.5 D.1 Some particular considerations that may be relevant when the FSA determines whether to issue a public censure rather than impose a financial penalty are:

1. (1)

   whether or not deterrence may be effectively achieved by issuing a public censure;

2. (2)

   if the person has made a profit or avoided a loss as a result of the breach, this may be a factor in favour of a financial penalty, on the basis that a person should not be permitted to benefit from its breach;

3. (3)

   if the breach is more serious in nature or degree, this may be a factor in favour of a financial penalty, on the basis that the sanction should reflect the seriousness of the breach; other things being equal, the more serious the breach, the more likely the FSA is to impose a financial penalty;

4. (4)

   if the person has brought the breach to the attention of the FSA, this may be a factor in favour of a public censure, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the breach;

5. (5)

   if the person has admitted the breach and provides full and immediate co-operation to the FSA, and takes steps to ensure that those who have suffered loss due to the breach are fully compensated for those losses, this may be a factor in favour of a public censure, rather than a financial penalty, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the breach;

6. (6)

   if the person has a poor disciplinary record or compliance history (for example, where the FSA has previously brought disciplinary action resulting in adverse findings in relation to the same or similar behaviour), this may be a factor in favour of a financial penalty, on the basis that it may be particularly important to deter future cases;

7. (7)

   the FSA's approach in similar previous cases: the FSA will seek to achieve a consistent approach to its decisions on whether to impose a financial penalty or issue a public censure; and

8. (8)

   the impact on the person concerned. It1 would only be in an exceptional case that the FSA would be prepared to agree to issue a public censure rather than impose a financial penalty if a financial penalty would otherwise be the appropriate sanction. Examples of such exceptional cases could include:

   11
   1. (a)

      where the application of the FSA's policy on serious financial hardship (set out in DEPP 6.5D) results in a financial penalty being reduced to zero;1

      1
   2. (b)

      where there is 1verifiable evidence that the person would be unable to meet other regulatory requirements, particularly financial resource requirements, if the FSA imposed a financial penalty at an appropriate level; or

   3. (c)

      in Part VI cases in which the FSA may impose a financial penalty, where there is the likelihood of a severe adverse impact on a person's shareholders or a consequential impact on market confidence or market stability if a financial penalty was imposed. However, this does not exclude the imposition of a financial penalty even though this may have an impact on a person's shareholders.

2For the purpose of DEPP 6.5 to DEPP 6.5D and DEPP 6.6.2 G, the term “firm” means firms and those unauthorised persons who are not individuals.

The FSA's penalty-setting regime is based on the following principles:

1. (1)

   Disgorgement - a firm or individual should not benefit from any breach;

2. (2)

   Discipline - a firm or individual should be penalised for wrongdoing; and

3. (3)

   Deterrence - any penalty imposed should deter the firm or individual who committed the breach, and others, from committing further or similar breaches.

1. (1)

   The total amount payable by a person subject to enforcement action may be made up of two elements: (i) disgorgement of the benefit received as a result of the breach; and (ii) a financial penalty reflecting the seriousness of the breach. These elements are incorporated in a five-step framework, which can be summarised as follows:

   1. (a)

      Step 1: the removal of any financial benefit derived directly from the breach;

   2. (b)

      Step 2: the determination of a figure which reflects the seriousness of the breach;

   3. (c)

      Step 3: an adjustment made to the Step 2 figure to take account of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances;

   4. (d)

      Step 4: an upwards adjustment made to the amount arrived at after Steps 2 and 3, where appropriate, to ensure that the penalty has an appropriate deterrent effect; and

   5. (e)

      Step 5: if applicable, a settlement discount will be applied. This discount does not apply to disgorgement of any financial benefit derived directly from the breach.

2. (2)

   These steps will apply in all cases, although the details of Steps 1 to 4 will differ for cases against firms (DEPP 6.5A), cases against individuals (DEPP 6.5B) and market abuse cases against individuals (DEPP 6.5C).

3. (3)

   The FSA recognises that a penalty must be proportionate to the breach. The FSA may decrease the level of the penalty arrived at after applying Step 2 of the framework if it considers that the penalty is disproportionately high for the breach concerned. For cases against firms, the FSA will have regard to whether the firm is also an individual (for example, a sole trader) in determining whether the figure arrived at after applying Step 2 is disproportionate.

4. (4)

   The lists of factors and circumstances in DEPP 6.5A to DEPP 6.5D are not exhaustive. Not all of the factors or circumstances listed will necessarily be relevant in a particular case and there may be other factors or circumstances not listed which are relevant.

5. (5)

   The FSA may decide to impose a financial penalty on a mutual (such as a building society), even though this may have a direct impact on that mutual’s customers. This reflects the fact that a significant proportion of a mutual’s customers are shareholder-members; to that extent, their position involves an assumption of risk that is not assumed by customers of a firm that is not a mutual. Whether a firm is a mutual will not, by itself, increase or decrease the level of a financial penalty.

6. (6)

   Part III (Penalties and Fees) of Schedule 1 to the Act specifically provides that the FSAmay not, in determining its policy with respect to the amount of penalties, take account of expenses which it incurs, or expects to incur, in discharging its functions.

1. (1)

   1The FSAwill seek to deprive a firm of the financial benefit derived directly from the breach (which may include the profit made or loss avoided) where it is practicable to quantify this. The FSA will ordinarily also charge interest on the benefit.

2. (2)

   Where the success of a firm’s entire business model is dependent on breaching FSA rules or other requirements of the regulatory system and the breach is at the core of the firm’s regulated activities, the FSA will seek to deprive the firm of all the financial benefit derived from such activities. Where a firm agrees to carry out a redress programme to compensate those who have suffered loss as a result of the breach, or where the FSA decides to impose a redress programme, the FSA will take this into consideration. In such cases the final penalty might not include a disgorgement element, or the disgorgement element might be reduced.

[Note: For the purposes of DEPP 6.5A, “firm” has the special meaning given to it in DEPP 6.5.1 G]

1. (1)

   The FSA will determine a figure that reflects the seriousness of the breach. In many cases, the amount of revenue generated by a firm from a particular product line or business area is indicative of the harm or potential harm that its breach may cause, and in such cases the FSA will determine a figure which will be based on a percentage of the firm’s revenue from the relevant products or business areas. The FSA also believes that the amount of revenue generated by a firm from a particular product or business area is relevant in terms of the size of the financial penalty necessary to act as a credible deterrent. However, the FSA recognises that there may be cases where revenue is not an appropriate indicator of the harm or potential harm that a firm’s breach may cause, and in those cases the FSA will use an appropriate alternative.

2. (2)

   In those cases where the FSA considers that revenue is an appropriate indicator of the harm or potential harm that a firm’s breach may cause, the FSA will determine a figure which will be based on a percentage of the firm’s “relevant revenue”. “Relevant revenue” will be the revenue derived by the firm during the period of the breach from the products or business areas to which the breach relates. Where the breach lasted less than 12 months, or was a one-off event, the relevant revenue will be that derived by the firm in the 12 months preceding the end of the breach. Where the firm was in existence for less than 12 months, its relevant revenue will be calculated on a pro rata basis to the equivalent of 12 months’ relevant revenue.

3. (3)

   Having determined the relevant revenue, the FSA will then decide on the percentage of that revenue which will form the basis of the penalty. In making this determination the FSA will consider the seriousness of the breach and choose a percentage between 0% and 20%. This range is divided into five fixed levels which represent, on a sliding scale, the seriousness of the breach. The more serious the breach, the higher the level. For penalties imposed on firms there are the following five levels:

   1. (a)

      level 1 - 0%;

   2. (b)

      level 2 - 5%;

   3. (c)

      level 3 - 10%;

   4. (d)

      level 4 - 15%; and

   5. (e)

      level 5 - 20%.

4. (4)

   The FSA will assess the seriousness of a breach to determine which level is most appropriate to the case.

5. (5)

   In deciding which level is most appropriate to a case involving a firm, the FSA will take into account various factors, which will usually fall into the following four categories:

   1. (a)

      factors relating to the impact of the breach;

   2. (b)

      factors relating to the nature of the breach;

   3. (c)

      factors tending to show whether the breach was deliberate; and

   4. (d)

      factors tending to show whether the breach was reckless.

6. (6)

   Factors relating to the impact of a breach committed by a firm include:

   1. (a)

      the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the firm from the breach, either directly or indirectly;

   2. (b)

      the loss or risk of loss, as a whole, caused to consumers, investors or other market users in general;

   3. (c)

      the loss or risk of loss caused to individual consumers, investors or other market users;

   4. (d)

      whether the breach had an effect on particularly vulnerable people, whether intentionally or otherwise;

   5. (e)

      the inconvenience or distress caused to consumers; and

   6. (f)

      whether the breach had an adverse effect on markets and, if so, how serious that effect was. This may include having regard to whether the orderliness of, or confidence in, the markets in question has been damaged or put at risk.

7. (7)

   Factors relating to the nature of a breach by a firm include:

   1. (a)

      the nature of the rules, requirements or provisions breached;

   2. (b)

      the frequency of the breach;

   3. (c)

      whether the breach revealed serious or systemic weaknesses in the firm’s procedures or in the management systems or internal controls relating to all or part of the firm’s business;

   4. (d)

      whether the firm’s senior management were aware of the breach;

   5. (e)

      the nature and extent of any financial crime facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the breach;

   6. (f)

      the scope for any potential financial crime to be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur as a result of the breach;

   7. (g)

      whether the firm failed to conduct its business with integrity;

   8. (h)

      whether the firm, in committing the breach, took any steps to comply with FSArules, and the adequacy of those steps; and

   9. (i)

      in the context of contraventions of Part VI of the Act, the extent to which the behaviour which constitutes the contravention departs from current market practice.

8. (8)

   Factors tending to show the breach was deliberate include:

   1. (a)

      the breach was intentional, in that the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, intended or foresaw that the likely or actual consequences of their actions or inaction would result in a breach;

   2. (b)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, knew that their actions were not in accordance with the firm’s internal procedures;

   3. (c)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, sought to conceal their misconduct;

   4. (d)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, committed the breach in such a way as to avoid or reduce the risk that the breach would be discovered;

   5. (e)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, were influenced to commit the breach by the belief that it would be difficult to detect;

   6. (f)

      the breach was repeated; and

   7. (g)

      in the context of a contravention of any rule or requirement imposed by or under Part VI of the Act, the firm obtained reasonable professional advice before the contravention occurred and failed to follow that advice. Obtaining professional advice does not remove a person’s responsibility for compliance with applicable rules and requirements.

9. (9)

   Factors tending to show the breach was reckless include:

   1. (a)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, appreciated there was a risk that their actions or inaction could result in a breach and failed adequately to mitigate that risk; and

   2. (b)

      the firm’s senior management, or a responsible individual, were aware there was a risk that their actions or inaction could result in a breach but failed to check if they were acting in accordance with the firm’s internal procedures.

10. (10)

    Additional factors to which the FSA will have regard when determining the appropriate level of financial penalty to be imposed under regulation 34 of the RCB Regulations are set out in RCB 4.2.5 G.

11. (11)

    In following this approach factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 4 factors’ or ‘level 5 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       the breach caused a significant loss or risk of loss to individual consumers, investors or other market users;

    2. (b)

       the breach revealed serious or systemic weaknesses in the firm’s procedures or in the management systems or internal controls relating to all or part of the firm’s business;

    3. (c)

       financial crime was facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the breach;

    4. (d)

       the breach created a significant risk that financial crime would be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur;

    5. (e)

       the firm failed to conduct its business with integrity; and

    6. (f)

       the breach was committed deliberately or recklessly.

12. (12)

    Factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 1 factors’, ‘level 2 factors’ or ‘level 3 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       little, or no, profits were made or losses avoided as a result of the breach, either directly or indirectly;

    2. (b)

       there was no or little loss or risk of loss to consumers, investors or other market users individually and in general;

    3. (c)

       there was no, or limited, actual or potential effect on the orderliness of, or confidence in, markets as a result of the breach;

    4. (d)

       there is no evidence that the breach indicates a widespread problem or weakness at the firm; and

    5. (e)

       the breach was committed negligently or inadvertently.

13. (13)

    In those cases where revenue is not an appropriate indicator of the harm or potential harm that a firm’s breach may cause, the FSA will adopt a similar approach, and so will determine the appropriate Step 2 amount for a particular breach by taking into account relevant factors, including those listed above. In these cases the FSA may not use the percentage levels that are applied in those cases in which revenue is an appropriate indicator of the harm or potential harm that a firm’s breach may cause.

1. (1)

   The FSA may increase or decrease the amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2, but not including any amount to be disgorged as set out in Step 1, to take into account factors which aggravate or mitigate the breach. Any such adjustments will be made by way of a percentage adjustment to the figure determined at Step 2.

2. (2)

   The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the breach:

   1. (a)

      the conduct of the firm in bringing (or failing to bring) quickly, effectively and completely the breach to the FSA’s attention (or the attention of other regulatory authorities, where relevant);

   2. (b)

      the degree of cooperation the firm showed during the investigation of the breach by the FSA, or any other regulatory authority allowed to share information with the FSA;

   3. (c)

      where the firm’s senior management were aware of the breach or of the potential for a breach, whether they took any steps to stop the breach, and when these steps were taken;

   4. (d)

      any remedial steps taken since the breach was identified, including whether these were taken on the firm’s own initiative or that of the FSA or another regulatory authority; for example, identifying whether consumers or investors or other market users suffered loss and compensating them where they have; correcting any misleading statement or impression; taking disciplinary action against staff involved (if appropriate); and taking steps to ensure that similar problems cannot arise in the future. The size and resources of the firm may be relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the steps taken;

   5. (e)

      whether the firm has arranged its resources in such a way as to allow or avoid disgorgement and/or payment of a financial penalty;

   6. (f)

      whether the firm had previously been told about the FSA’s concerns in relation to the issue, either by means of a private warning or in supervisory correspondence;

   7. (g)

      whether the firm had previously undertaken not to perform a particular act or engage in particular behaviour;

   8. (h)

      whether the firm concerned has complied with any requirements or rulings of another regulatory authority relating to the breach;

   9. (i)

      the previous disciplinary record and general compliance history of the firm;

   10. (j)

       action taken against the firm by other domestic or international regulatory authorities that is relevant to the breach in question;

   11. (k)

       whether FSAguidance or other published materials had already raised relevant concerns, and the nature and accessibility of such materials; and

   12. (l)

       whether the FSA publicly called for an improvement in standards in relation to the behaviour constituting the breach or similar behaviour before or during the occurrence of the breach.

1. (1)

   If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the firm who committed the breach, or others, from committing further or similar breaches then the FSA may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FSA may do this include:

   1. (a)

      where the FSA considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;

   2. (b)

      where previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve industry standards. This may include similar breaches relating to different products (for example, action for mis-selling or claims handling failures in respect of ‘x’ product may be relevant to a case for mis-selling or claims handling failures in respect of ‘y’ product);

   3. (c)

      where the FSA considers it is likely that similar breaches will be committed by the firm or by other firms in the future in the absence of such an increase to the penalty; and

   4. (d)

      where the FSA considers that the likelihood of the detection of such a breach is low.

The FSA and the firm on whom a penalty is to be imposed may seek to agree the amount of any financial penalty and other terms. In recognition of the benefits of such agreements, DEPP 6.7 provides that the amount of the financial penalty which might otherwise have been payable will be reduced to reflect the stage at which the FSA and the firm concerned reached an agreement. The settlement discount does not apply to the disgorgement of any benefit calculated at Step 1.

2The FSA will seek to deprive an individual of the financial benefit derived directly from the breach (which may include the profit made or loss avoided) where it is practicable to quantify this. The FSA will ordinarily also charge interest on the benefit. Where the success of a firm’s entire business model is dependent on breaching FSArules or other requirements of the regulatory system and the individual’s breach is at the core of the firm’s regulated activities, the FSA will seek to deprive the individual of all the financial benefit he has derived from such activities.

[Note: For the purposes of DEPP 6.5B, “firm” has the special meaning given to it in DEPP 6.5.1 G.]

1. (1)

   The FSA will determine a figure which will be based on a percentage of an individual’s “relevant income”. “Relevant income” will be the gross amount of all benefits received by the individual from the employment in connection with which the breach occurred (the “relevant employment”), and for the period of the breach. In determining an individual’s relevant income, “benefits” includes, but is not limited to, salary, bonus, pension contributions, share options and share schemes; and “employment” includes, but is not limited to, employment as an adviser, director, partner or contractor.

2. (2)

   Where the breach lasted less than 12 months, or was a one-off event, the relevant income will be that earned by the individual in the 12 months preceding the end of the breach. Where the individual was in the relevant employment for less than 12 months, his relevant income will be calculated on a pro rata basis to the equivalent of 12 months’ relevant income.

3. (3)

   This approach reflects the FSA’s view that an individual receives remuneration commensurate with his responsibilities, and so it is reasonable to base the amount of penalty for failure to discharge his duties properly on his remuneration. The FSA also believes that the extent of the financial benefit earned by an individual is relevant in terms of the size of the financial penalty necessary to act as a credible deterrent. The FSA recognises that in some cases an individual may be approved for only a small part of the work he carries out on a day-to-day basis. However, in these circumstances the FSA still considers it appropriate to base the relevant income figure on all of the benefit that an individual gains from the relevant employment, even if his employment is not totally related to a controlled function.

4. (4)

   Having determined the relevant income the FSA will then decide on the percentage of that income which will form the basis of the penalty. In making this determination the FSA will consider the seriousness of the breach and choose a percentage between 0% and 40%.

5. (5)

   This range is divided into five fixed levels which reflect, on a sliding scale, the seriousness of the breach. The more serious the breach, the higher the level. For penalties imposed on individuals there are the following five levels:

   1. (a)

      level 1 - 0%;

   2. (b)

      level 2 - 10%;

   3. (c)

      level 3 - 20%;

   4. (d)

      level 4 - 30%; and

   5. (e)

      level 5 - 40%.

6. (6)

   The FSA will assess the seriousness of a breach to determine which level is most appropriate to the case.

7. (7)

   In deciding which level is most appropriate to a case against an individual, the FSA will take into account various factors which will usually fall into the following four categories:

   1. (a)

      factors relating to the impact of the breach;

   2. (b)

      factors relating to the nature of the breach;

   3. (c)

      factors tending to show whether the breach was deliberate; and

   4. (d)

      factors tending to show whether the breach was reckless.

8. (8)

   Factors relating to the impact of a breach committed by an individual include:

   1. (a)

      the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the individual from the breach, either directly or indirectly;

   2. (b)

      the loss or risk of loss, as a whole, caused to consumers, investors or other market users in general;

   3. (c)

      the loss or risk of loss caused to individual consumers, investors or other market users;

   4. (d)

      whether the breach had an effect on particularly vulnerable people, whether intentionally or otherwise;

   5. (e)

      the inconvenience or distress caused to consumers; and

   6. (f)

      whether the breach had an adverse effect on markets and, if so, how serious that effect was. This may include having regard to whether the orderliness of, or confidence in, the markets in question has been damaged or put at risk.

9. (9)

   Factors relating to the nature of a breach by an individual include:

   1. (a)

      the nature of the rules, requirements or provisions breached;

   2. (b)

      the frequency of the breach;

   3. (c)

      the nature and extent of any financial crime facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the breach;

   4. (d)

      the scope for any potential financial crime to be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur as a result of the breach;

   5. (e)

      whether the individual failed to act with integrity;

   6. (f)

      whether the individual abused a position of trust;

   7. (g)

      whether the individual committed a breach of any professional code of conduct;

   8. (h)

      whether the individual caused or encouraged other individuals to commit breaches;

   9. (i)

      whether the individual held a prominent position within the industry;

   10. (j)

       whether the individual is an experienced industry professional;

   11. (k)

       whether the individual held a senior position with the firm;

   12. (l)

       the extent of the responsibility of the individual for the product or business areas affected by the breach, and for the particular matter that was the subject of the breach;

   13. (m)

       whether the individual acted under duress;

   14. (n)

       whether the individual took any steps to comply with FSArules, and the adequacy of those steps;

       1
   15. (o)

       in the context of contraventions of Part VI of the Act, the extent to which the behaviour which constitutes the contravention departs from current market practice;1

   16. (p)

       1in relation to a contravention of section 63A of the Act, whether the individual’s only misconduct was to perform a controlled function without approval;

   17. (q)

       1in relation to a contravention of section 63A of the Act, whether the individual performed controlled functions without approval and, while doing so, committed misconduct in respect of which, if the individual had been an approved person, the FSA would have been empowered to take action pursuant to section 66 of the Act; and

   18. (r)

       1in relation to a contravention of section 63A of the Act, the extent to which the individual could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval. The circumstances in which the FSA would expect to be satisfied that a person could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval include:

       1. (i)

          the person had previously performed a similar role at the same or another firm for which he had been approved;

       2. (ii)

          the person'sfirm or another firm had previously applied for approval for the person to perform the same or a similar controlled function;

       3. (iii)

          the person's seniority or experience was such that he could reasonably be expected to have known that he was performing a controlled function without approval; and

       4. (iv)

          the person's firm had clearly apportioned responsibilities so the person's role, and the responsibilities associated with it, were clear.

10. (10)

    Factors tending to show the breach was deliberate include:

    1. (a)

       the breach was intentional, in that the individual intended or foresaw that the likely or actual consequences of his actions or inaction would result in a breach;

    2. (b)

       the individual intended to benefit financially from the breach, either directly or indirectly;

    3. (c)

       the individual knew that his actions were not in accordance with his firm’s internal procedures;

    4. (d)

       the individual sought to conceal his misconduct;

    5. (e)

       the individual committed the breach in such a way as to avoid or reduce the risk that the breach would be discovered;

    6. (f)

       the individual was influenced to commit the breach by the belief that it would be difficult to detect;

    7. (g)

       the individual knowingly took decisions relating to the breach beyond his field of competence; and

    8. (h)

       the individual’s actions were repeated.

11. (11)

    Factors tending to show the breach was reckless include:

    1. (a)

       the individual appreciated there was a risk that his actions or inaction could result in a breach and failed adequately to mitigate that risk; and

    2. (b)

       the individual was aware there was a risk that his actions or inaction could result in a breach but failed to check if he was acting in accordance with internal procedures.

12. (12)

    In following this approach factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 4 factors’ or ‘level 5 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       the breach caused a significant loss or risk of loss to individual consumers, investors or other market users;

    2. (b)

       financial crime was facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the breach;

    3. (c)

       the breach created a significant risk that financial crime would be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur;

    4. (d)

       the individual failed to act with integrity;

    5. (e)

       the individual abused a position of trust;

    6. (f)

       the individual held a prominent position within the industry; and

    7. (g)

       the breach was committed deliberately or recklessly.

13. (13)

    Factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 1 factors’, ‘level 2 factors’ or ‘level 3 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       little, or no, profits were made or losses avoided as a result of the breach, either directly or indirectly;

    2. (b)

       there was no or little loss or risk of loss to consumers, investors or other market users individually and in general;

    3. (c)

       there was no, or limited, actual or potential effect on the orderliness of, or confidence in, markets as a result of the breach;

       1
    4. (d)

       the breach was committed negligently or inadvertently; and1

    5. (e)

       1in relation to a contravention of section 63A of the Act, the individual’s only misconduct was to perform a controlled function without approval.

1. (1)

   The FSA may increase or decrease the amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2, but not including any amount to be disgorged as set out in Step 1, to take into account factors which aggravate or mitigate the breach. Any such adjustments will be made by way of a percentage adjustment to the figure determined at Step 2.

2. (2)

   The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the breach:

   1. (a)

      the conduct of the individual in bringing (or failing to bring) quickly, effectively and completely the breach to the FSA’s attention (or the attention of other regulatory authorities, where relevant);

   2. (b)

      the degree of cooperation the individual showed during the investigation of the breach by the FSA, or any other regulatory authority allowed to share information with the FSA;

   3. (c)

      whether the individual took any steps to stop the breach, and when these steps were taken;

   4. (d)

      any remedial steps taken since the breach was identified, including whether these were taken on the individual’s own initiative or that of the FSA or another regulatory authority;

   5. (e)

      whether the individual has arranged his resources in such a way as to allow or avoid disgorgement and/or payment of a financial penalty;

   6. (f)

      whether the individual had previously been told about the FSA’sconcerns in relation to the issue, either by means of a private warning or in supervisory correspondence;

   7. (g)

      whether the individual had previously undertaken not to perform a particular act or engage in particular behaviour;

   8. (h)

      whether the individual has complied with any requirements or rulings of another regulatory authority relating to the breach;

   9. (i)

      the previous disciplinary record and general compliance history of the individual;

   10. (j)

       action taken against the individual by other domestic or international regulatory authorities that is relevant to the breach in question;

   11. (k)

       whether FSAguidance or other published materials had already raised relevant concerns, and the nature and accessibility of such materials;

   12. (l)

       whether the FSA publicly called for an improvement in standards in relation to the behaviour constituting the breach or similar behaviour before or during the occurrence of the breach;

       1
   13. (m)

       whether the individual agreed to undertake training subsequent to the breach; and1

   14. (n)

       1in relation to a contravention of section 63A of the Act, whether the person'sfirm or another firm has previously withdrawn an application for the person to perform the same or a similar controlled function or has had such an application rejected by the FSA.

1. (1)

   If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the individual who committed the breach, or others, from committing further or similar breaches then the FSA may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FSA may do this include:

   1. (a)

      where the FSA considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the breach to meet its objective of credible deterrence;

   2. (b)

      where previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve industry standards. This may include similar breaches relating to different products (for example, action for mis-selling or claims handling failures in respect of ‘x’ product may be relevant to a case for mis-selling or claims handling failures in respect of ‘y’ product);

   3. (c)

      where the FSA considers it is likely that similar breaches will be committed by the individual or by other individuals in the future;

   4. (d)

      where the FSA considers that the likelihood of the detection of such a breach is low; and

   5. (e)

      where a penalty based on an individual’s income may not act as a deterrent, for example, if an individual has a small or zero income but owns assets of high value.

The FSA and the individual on whom a penalty is to be imposed may seek to agree the amount of any financial penalty and other terms. In recognition of the benefits of such agreements, DEPP 6.7 provides that the amount of the financial penalty which might otherwise have been payable will be reduced to reflect the stage at which the FSA and the individual concerned reached an agreement. The settlement discount does not apply to the disgorgement of any benefit calculated at Step 1.

1The FSA will seek to deprive an individual of the financial benefit derived as a direct result of the market abuse (which may include the profit made or loss avoided) where it is practicable to quantify this. The FSA will ordinarily also charge interest on the benefit.

1. (1)

   The FSA will determine a figure dependent on the seriousness of the market abuse and whether or not it was referable to the individual’s employment. This reflects the FSA’s view that where an individual has been put into a position where he can commit market abuse because of his employment the fine imposed should reflect this by reference to the gross amount of all benefits derived from that employment.

2. (2)

   In cases where the market abuse was referable to the individual’s employment, the figure for the purpose of Step 2 will be the greater of:

   1. (a)

      a figure based on a percentage of the individual’s “relevant income”. The percentage of relevant income which will apply is explained in paragraphs (6) and (8) to (16) below;

   2. (b)

      a multiple of the profit made or loss avoided by the individual for his own benefit, or for the benefit of other individuals where the individual has been instrumental in achieving that benefit, as a direct result of the market abuse (the “profit multiple”). The profit multiple which will apply is explained in paragraphs (6) and (8) to (16) below; and

   3. (c)

      for market abuse cases which the FSA assesses to be seriousness level 4 or 5, £100,000. How the FSA will assess the seriousness level of the market abuse is explained in paragraphs (9) to (16) below. The FSA usually expects to assess market abuse committed deliberately as seriousness level 4 or 5.

3. (3)

   In cases where the market abuse was not referable to the individual’s employment, the figure for the purpose of Step 2 will be the greater of:

   1. (a)

      a multiple of the profit made or loss avoided by the individual for his own benefit, or for the benefit of other individuals where the individual has been instrumental in achieving that benefit, as a direct result of the market abuse (the “profit multiple”). The profit multiple which will apply is explained in paragraphs (7) to (16) below; and

   2. (b)

      for market abuse cases which the FSA assesses to be seriousness level 4 or 5, £100,000. How the FSA will assess the seriousness level of the market abuse is explained in paragraphs (9) to (16) below. The FSA usually expects to assess market abuse committed deliberately as seriousness level 4 or 5.

4. (4)

   An individual’s “relevant income” will be the gross amount of all benefits received by the individual from the employment in connection with which the market abuse occurred (the “relevant employment”) for the period of the market abuse. In determining an individual’s relevant income, “benefits” includes, but is not limited to, salary, bonus, pension contributions, share options and share schemes; and “employment” includes, but is not limited to, employment as an adviser, director, partner or contractor.

5. (5)

   Where the market abuse lasted less than 12 months, or was a one-off event, the relevant income will be that earned by the individual in the 12 months preceding the final market abuse. Where the individual was in the relevant employment for less than 12 months, his relevant income will be calculated on a pro rata basis to the equivalent of 12 months’ relevant income.

6. (6)

   In cases where the market abuse was referable to the individual’s employment:

   1. (a)

      the FSA will determine the percentage of relevant income which will apply by considering the seriousness of the market abuse and choosing a percentage between 0% and 40%; and

   2. (b)

      the FSA will determine the profit multiple which will apply by considering the seriousness of the market abuse and choosing a multiple between 0 and 4.

7. (7)

   In cases where the market abuse was not referable to the individual’s employment the FSA will determine the profit multiple which will apply by considering the seriousness of the market abuse and choosing a multiple between 0 and 4.

8. (8)

   The percentage range (where the market abuse was referable to the individual’s employment) and profit multiple range (in all cases) are divided into five fixed levels which reflect, on a sliding scale, the seriousness of the market abuse. The more serious the market abuse, the higher the level. For penalties imposed on individuals for market abuse there are the following five levels (the percentage figures only apply where the market abuse was referable to the individual’s employment):

   1. (a)

      level 1 - 0%, profit multiple of 0;

   2. (b)

      level 2 - 10%, profit multiple of 1;

   3. (c)

      level 3 - 20%, profit multiple of 2;

   4. (d)

      level 4 - 30%, profit multiple of 3; and

   5. (e)

      level 5 - 40%, profit multiple of 4.

9. (9)

   The FSA will assess the seriousness of the market abuse to determine which level is most appropriate to the case.

10. (10)

    In deciding which level is most appropriate to a market abuse case, the FSA will take into account various factors which will usually fall into the following four categories:

    1. (a)

       factors relating to the impact of the market abuse;

    2. (b)

       factors relating to the nature of the market abuse;

    3. (c)

       factors tending to show whether the market abuse was deliberate; and

    4. (d)

       factors tending to show whether the market abuse was reckless.

11. (11)

    Factors relating to the impact of the market abuse include:

    1. (a)

       the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the individual from the market abuse, either directly or indirectly;

    2. (b)

       whether the market abuse had an adverse effect on markets and, if so, how serious that effect was. This may include having regard to whether the orderliness of, or confidence in, the markets in question has been damaged or put at risk; and

    3. (c)

       whether the market abuse had a significant impact on the price of shares or other investments.

12. (12)

    Factors relating to the nature of the market abuse include:

    1. (a)

       the frequency of the market abuse;

    2. (b)

       whether the individual abused a position of trust;

    3. (c)

       whether the individual caused or encouraged other individuals to commit market abuse;

    4. (d)

       whether the individual has a prominent position in the market;

    5. (e)

       whether the individual is an experienced industry professional;

    6. (f)

       whether the individual held a senior position with the firm; and

    7. (g)

       whether the individual acted under duress.

13. (13)

    Factors tending to show the market abuse was deliberate include:

    1. (a)

       the market abuse was intentional, in that the individual intended or foresaw that the likely or actual consequences of his actions would result in market abuse;

    2. (b)

       the individual intended to benefit financially from the market abuse, either directly or indirectly;

    3. (c)

       the individual knew that his actions were not in accordance with exchange rules, share dealing rules and/or the firm’s internal procedures;

    4. (d)

       the individual sought to conceal his misconduct;

    5. (e)

       the individual committed the market abuse in such a way as to avoid or reduce the risk that the market abuse would be discovered;

    6. (f)

       the individual was influenced to commit the market abuse by the belief that it would be difficult to detect;

    7. (g)

       the individual’s actions were repeated;

    8. (h)

       for market abuse falling within section 118(2) of the Act, the individual knew or recognised that the information on which the dealing was based was inside information; and

    9. (i)

       for market abuse falling within section 118(4) of the Act, the individual’s behaviour was based on information which he knew or recognised was not generally available to those using the market, and the individual regarded the information as relevant when deciding the terms on which transactions in qualifying investments should be effected.

14. (14)

    Factors tending to show the market abuse was reckless include:

    1. (a)

       the individual appreciated there was a risk that his actions could result in market abuse and failed adequately to mitigate that risk; and

    2. (b)

       the individual was aware there was a risk that his actions could result in market abuse but failed to check if he was acting in accordance with internal procedures.

15. (15)

    In following this approach factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 4 factors’ or ‘level 5 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, directly by the individual from the market abuse was significant;

    2. (b)

       the market abuse had a serious adverse effect on the orderliness of, or confidence in, markets;

    3. (c)

       the market abuse was committed on multiple occasions;

    4. (d)

       the individual breached a position of trust;

    5. (e)

       the individual has a prominent position in the market; and

    6. (f)

       the market abuse was committed deliberately or recklessly.

16. (16)

    In following this approach factors which are likely to be considered ‘level 1 factors’, ‘level 2 factors’ or ‘level 3 factors’ include:

    1. (a)

       little, or no, profits were made or losses avoided as a result of the market abuse, either directly or indirectly;

    2. (b)

       there was no, or limited, actual or potential effect on the orderliness of, or confidence in, markets as a result of the market abuse; and

    3. (c)

       the market abuse was committed negligently or inadvertently.

[Note: For the purposes of DEPP 6.5C, “firm” has the special meaning given to it in DEPP 6.5.1 G.]

1. (1)

   The FSA may increase or decrease the amount of the financial penalty arrived at after Step 2, but not including any amount to be disgorged as set out in Step 1, to take into account factors which aggravate or mitigate the market abuse. Any such adjustments will be made by way of a percentage adjustment to the figure determined at Step 2.

2. (2)

   The following list of factors may have the effect of aggravating or mitigating the market abuse:

   1. (a)

      the conduct of the individual in bringing (or failing to bring) quickly, effectively and completely the market abuse to the FSA’s attention (or the attention of other regulatory authorities, where relevant);

   2. (b)

      the degree of cooperation the individual showed during the investigation of the market abuse by the FSA, or any other regulatory authority allowed to share information with the FSA;

   3. (c)

      whether the individual assists the FSA in action taken against other individuals for market abuse and/or in criminal proceedings;

   4. (d)

      whether the individual has arranged his resources in such a way as to allow or avoid disgorgement and/or payment of a financial penalty;

   5. (e)

      whether the individual had previously been told about the FSA’s concerns in relation to the issue, either by means of a private warning or in supervisory correspondence;

   6. (f)

      the previous disciplinary record and general compliance history of the individual;

   7. (g)

      action taken against the individual by other domestic or international regulatory authorities that is relevant to the market abuse in question;

   8. (h)

      whether FSAguidance or other published materials had already raised relevant concerns, and the nature and accessibility of such materials; and

   9. (i)

      whether the individual agreed to undertake training subsequent to the market abuse.

1. (1)

   If the FSA considers the figure arrived at after Step 3 is insufficient to deter the individual who committed the market abuse, or others, from committing further or similar abuse then the FSA may increase the penalty. Circumstances where the FSA may do this include:

   1. (a)

      where the FSA considers the absolute value of the penalty too small in relation to the market abuse to meet its objective of credible deterrence;

   2. (b)

      where previous FSA action in respect of similar market abuse has failed to improve industry standards; and

   3. (c)

      where the penalty may not act as a deterrent in light of the size of the individual’s income or net assets.

The FSA and the individual on whom a penalty is to be imposed may seek to agree the amount of any financial penalty and other terms. In recognition of the benefits of such agreements, DEPP 6.7 provides that the amount of the financial penalty which might otherwise have been payable will be reduced to reflect the stage at which the FSA and the individual concerned reached an agreement. The settlement discount does not apply to the disgorgement of any benefit calculated at Step 1.

1. (1)

   1The FSA's approach to determining penalties described in DEPP 6.5 to DEPP 6.5C is intended to ensure that financial penalties are proportionate to the breach. The FSA recognises that penalties may affect persons differently, and that the FSA should consider whether a reduction in the proposed penalty is appropriate if the penalty would cause the subject of enforcement action serious financial hardship.

2. (2)

   Where an individual or firm claims that payment of the penalty proposed by the FSA will cause them serious financial hardship, the FSA will consider whether to reduce the proposed penalty only if:

   1. (a)

      the individual or firm provides verifiable evidence that payment of the penalty will cause them serious financial hardship; and

   2. (b)

      the individual or firm provides full, frank and timely disclosure of the verifiable evidence, and cooperates fully in answering any questions asked by the FSA about their financial position.

3. (3)

   The onus is on the individual or firm to satisfy the FSA that payment of the penalty will cause them serious financial hardship.

[Note: For the purposes of DEPP 6.5D, “firm” has the special meaning given to it in DEPP 6.5.1 G.]

1. (1)

   In assessing whether a penalty would cause an individual serious financial hardship, the FSA will consider the individual’s ability to pay the penalty over a reasonable period (normally no greater than three years). The FSA’s starting point is that an individual will suffer serious financial hardship only if during that period his net annual income will fall below £14,000 and his capital will fall below £16,000 as a result of payment of the penalty. Unless the FSA believes that both the individual’s income and capital will fall below these respective thresholds as a result of payment of the penalty, the FSA is unlikely to be satisfied that the penalty will result in serious financial hardship.

2. (2)

   The FSA will consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether the income and capital threshold levels should be increased in a particular case.

3. (3)

   The FSA will consider agreeing to payment of the penalty by instalments where the individual requires time to realise his assets, for example by waiting for payment of a salary or by selling property.

4. (4)

   For the purposes of considering whether an individual will suffer serious financial hardship, the FSA will consider as capital anything that could provide the individual with a source of income, including savings, property (including personal possessions), investments and land. The FSA will normally consider as capital the equity that an individual has in the home in which he lives, but will consider any representations by the individual about this; for example, as to the exceptionally severe impact a sale of the property might have upon other occupants of the property or the impracticability of re-mortgaging or selling the property within a reasonable period.

5. (5)

   The FSA may also consider the extent to which the individual has access to other means of financial support in determining whether he is able to pay the penalty without being caused serious financial hardship.

6. (6)

   Where a penalty is reduced it will be reduced to an amount which the individual can pay without going below the threshold levels that apply in that case. If an individual has no income, any reduction in the penalty will be to an amount that the individual can pay without going below the capital threshold.

7. (7)

   There may be cases where, even though the individual has satisfied the FSA that payment of the financial penalty would cause him serious financial hardship, the FSA considers the breach to be so serious that it is not appropriate to reduce the penalty. The FSA will consider all the circumstances of the case in determining whether this course of action is appropriate, including whether:

   1. (a)

      the individual directly derived a financial benefit from the breach and, if so, the extent of that financial benefit;

   2. (b)

      the individual acted fraudulently or dishonestly with a view to personal gain;

   3. (c)

      previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve industry standards; or

   4. (d)

      the individual has spent money or dissipated assets in anticipation of FSA or other enforcement action with a view to frustrating or limiting the impact of action taken by the FSA or other authorities.

In cases against individuals, including market abuse cases, the FSA may make a prohibition order under section 56 of the Act or withdraw an individual’s approval under section 63 of the Act, as well as impose a financial penalty. Such action by the FSA reflects the FSA’s assessment of the individual’s fitness to perform regulated activity or suitability for a particular role, and does not affect the FSA’s assessment of the appropriate financial penalty in relation to a breach. However, the fact that the FSA has made a prohibition order against an individual or withdrawn his approval, as a result of which the individual may have less earning potential, may be relevant in assessing whether the penalty will cause the individual serious financial hardship.

1. (1)

   The FSA will consider reducing the amount of a penalty if a firm will suffer serious financial hardship as a result of having to pay the entire penalty. In deciding whether it is appropriate to reduce the penalty, the FSA will take into consideration the firm’s financial circumstances, including whether the penalty would render the firm insolvent or threaten the firm’s solvency. The FSA will also take into account its regulatory objectives, for example in situations where consumers would be harmed or market confidence would suffer, the FSA may consider it appropriate to reduce a penalty in order to allow a firm to continue in business and/or pay redress.

2. (2)

   There may be cases where, even though the firm has satisfied the FSA that payment of the financial penalty would cause it serious financial hardship, the FSA considers the breach to be so serious that it is not appropriate to reduce the penalty. The FSA will consider all the circumstances of the case in determining whether this course of action is appropriate, including whether:

   1. (a)

      the firm directly derived a financial benefit from the breach and, if so, the extent of that financial benefit;

   2. (b)

      the firm acted fraudulently or dishonestly in order to benefit financially;

   3. (c)

      previous FSA action in respect of similar breaches has failed to improve industry standards; or

   4. (d)

      the firm has spent money or dissipated assets in anticipation of FSA or other enforcement action with a view to frustrating or limiting the impact of action taken by the FSA or other authorities.

Where the FSA considers that, following commencement of an FSA investigation, an individual or firm has reduced their solvency in order to reduce the amount of any disgorgement or financial penalty payable, for example by transferring assets to third parties, the FSA will normally take account of those assets when determining whether the individual or firm would suffer serious financial hardship as a result of the disgorgement and financial penalty.

1. (1)

   The FSA attaches considerable importance to the timely submission by firms of reports. This is because the information that they contain is essential to the FSA's assessment of whether a firm is complying with the requirements and standards of the regulatory system and to the FSA's understanding of that firm's business.

2. (2)

   DEPP 6.6.1 G to DEPP 6.6.5 G set out the FSA's policy in relation to financial penalties for late submission of reports and is in addition to the FSA's policy relating to financial penalties as set out in DEPP 6.5 to DEPP 6.5D.1

   1

In addition to the factors considered in Step 2 for cases against firms (DEPP 6.5A) and cases against individuals (DEPP 6.5B),1 the following considerations are relevant.

1. (1)

   In general, the FSA's approach to disciplinary action arising from the late submission of a report will depend upon the length of time after the due date that the report in question is submitted.

2. (2)

   If the person concerned is an individual, it is open to him to make representations to the FSA as to why he should not be the subject of a financial penalty, or why a lower penalty should be imposed. If he does so, the matters to which the FSA will have regard will include the matters set out in DEPP 6.5B1. It should be noted that an administrative difficulty such as pressure of work does not, in itself, constitute a relevant circumstance for this purpose.

   1
3. (3)

   The FSA will have regard to repeated failures to submit reports on time. In the majority of cases involving such repeated failure, the FSA considers that it will be appropriate to seek more serious disciplinary sanctions or other enforcement action, including seeking to apply for the cancellation of the firm's permission.

4. (4)

   The FSA will also have regard to the submission frequency of the late report when assessing the seriousness of the contravention. For example, a short delay in submitting a weekly or monthly report can have serious implications for the supervision of the firm in question. Such a delay may therefore be subject to a higher penalty than might otherwise be the case.

[Note: For the purposes of DEPP 6.6.2 G, “firm” has the special meaning given to it in DEPP 6.5.1.]1

In addition, in appropriate cases, the FSA may bring disciplinary action against the approved persons within the firm's management who are ultimately responsible for ensuring that the firm's reports are completed and returned to the FSA.

In applying the guidance in this section, the FSA may treat a report which is materially incomplete or inaccurate as not received until it has been submitted in a form which is materially complete and accurate. For the purposes of the guidance, the FSA may also treat a report as not received where the method by which it is submitted to the FSA does not comply with the prescribed method of submission.

In most late reporting cases, it will not be necessary for the FSA to appoint an investigator since the fact of the breach will be clear. It follows that the FSA will not usually send the firm concerned a preliminary findings letter for late-reporting disciplinary action.

Persons subject to enforcement action may be prepared to agree the amount of any financial penalty and other conditions which the FSA seeks to impose by way of such action. Such conditions might include, for example, the amount or mechanism for the payment of compensation to consumers. The FSA recognises the benefits of such agreements, in that they offer the potential for securing earlier redress or protection for consumers and the saving of cost to the person concerned and the FSA itself in contesting the financial penalty. The penalty that might otherwise be payable in respect of a breach by the person concerned will therefore be reduced to reflect the timing of any settlement agreement.

In appropriate cases the FSA's approach will be to negotiate with the person concerned to agree in principle the amount of a financial penalty having regard to the FSA’s statement of policy as set out in DEPP 6.5 to DEPP 6.5D and DEPP 6.6.1 (This starting figure will take no account of the existence of the settlement discount scheme described in this section.) Such amount ("A") will then be reduced by a percentage of A according to the stage in the process at which agreement is reached. The resulting figure ("B") will be the amount actually payable by the person concerned in respect of the breach. However, where part of a proposed financial penalty specifically equates to the disgorgement of profit accrued or loss avoided then the percentage reduction will not apply to that part of the penalty.

1. (1)

   Any settlement agreement between the FSA and the person concerned will therefore need to include a statement as to the appropriate penalty discount in accordance with this procedure.

2. (2)

   In certain circumstances the person concerned may consider that it would have been possible to reach a settlement at an earlier stage in the action, and argue that it should be entitled to a greater percentage reduction in penalty than is suggested by the table at DEPP 6.7.3G (3). It may be, for example, that the FSA no longer wishes to pursue its action in respect of all of the acts or omissions previously alleged to give rise to the breach. In such cases, the person concerned might argue that it would have been prepared to agree an appropriate penalty at an earlier stage and should therefore benefit from the discount which would have been available at that time. Equally, FSA staff may consider that greater openness from the person concerned could have resulted in an earlier settlement.

3. (3)

   Arguments of this nature risk compromising the goals of greater clarity and transparency in respect of the benefits of early settlement, and invite dispute in each case as to when an agreement might have been possible. It will not usually be appropriate therefore to argue for a greater reduction in the amount of penalty on the basis that settlement could have been achieved earlier.

4. (4)

   However, in exceptional cases the FSA may accept that there has been a substantial change in the nature or seriousness of the action being taken against the person concerned, and that an agreement would have been possible at an earlier stage if the action had commenced on a different footing. In such cases the FSA and person concerned may agree that the amount of the reduction in penalty should reflect the stage at which a settlement might otherwise have been possible.

In cases in which the settlement discount scheme is applied, the fact of settlement and the level of the discount to the financial penalty imposed by the FSA will be set out in the final notice.