Related provisions for APER 4.5.4

1 - 20 of 39 items.

Search Term(s)

Filter by Topics

Filter by Modules

Filter by Documents

Filter by Keywords

Effective Period

Similar To

To access the FCA Handbook Archive choose a date between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2004 (From field only).

SYSC 2.2.1RRP
(1) A firm must make a record of the arrangements it has made to satisfy SYSC 2.1.1 R (apportionment) and SYSC 2.1.3 R (allocation) and take reasonable care to keep this up to date.(2) This record must be retained for six years from the date on which it was superseded by a more up-to-date record.
SYSC 2.2.2GRP
(1) A firm will be able to comply with SYSC 2.2.1 R by means of records which it keeps for its own purposes provided these records satisfy the requirements of SYSC 2.2.1 R and provided the firm takes reasonable care to keep them up to date. Appropriate records might, for this purpose, include organisational charts and diagrams, project management documents, job descriptions, committee constitutions and terms of reference provided they show a clear description of the firm's major functions.(2)
SYSC 2.2.3GRP
Where responsibilities have been allocated to more than one individual, the firm's record should show clearly how those responsibilities are shared or divided between the individuals concerned.
SYSC 2.1.1RRP
A firm must take reasonable care to maintain a clear and appropriate apportionment of significant responsibilities among its directors and senior managers in such a way that:(1) it is clear who has which of those responsibilities; and(2) the business and affairs of the firm can be adequately monitored and controlled by the directors, relevant senior managers and governing body of the firm.
SYSC 2.1.3RRP
A firm must appropriately allocate to one or more individuals, in accordance with SYSC 2.1.4 R, the functions of:(1) dealing with the apportionment of responsibilities under SYSC 2.1.1 R; and(2) overseeing the establishment and maintenance of systems and controls under SYSC 3.1.1 R.
SYSC 2.1.4RRP

Allocation of functions

This table belongs to SYSC 2.1.3 R

1: Firm type

2: Allocation of both functions must be to the following individual, if any (see Note):

3: Allocation to one or more individuals selected from this column is compulsory if there is no allocation to an individual in column 2, but is otherwise optional and additional:

(1) A firm which is a body corporate and is a member of a group, other than a firm in row (2)

(1) the firm's chief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one); or

the firm's and its group's:

(1) directors; and(2) senior managers

(2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of:

(a) the group; or(b) a group division within which some or all of the firm's regulated activities fall

(2) An incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm (note: only the function in SYSC 2.1.3 R (2) must be allocated)

(not applicable)

the firm's and its group's:

(1) directors; and (2) senior managers

(3) Any other firm

the firm's chief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one)

the firm's and its group's:

(1) directors; and (2) senior manager's

Note: Column 2 does not require the involvement of the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager in an aspect of corporate governance if that would be contrary to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance.
SYSC 2.1.5GRP
SYSC 2.1.3 R and SYSC 2.1.4 R give a firm some flexibility in the individuals to whom the functions may be allocated. It will be common for both the functions to be allocated solely to the firm's chief executive. SYSC 2.1.6 G contains further guidance on the requirements of SYSC 2.1.3 R and SYSC 2.1.4 R in a question and answer form.
SYSC 2.1.6GRP

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 2.1.3 R

This table belongs to SYSC 2.1.5 G

Question

Answer

1

Does an individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 2.1.3 R need to be an approved person?

An individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 2.1.3 R will be performing the apportionment and oversight function (CF 8, see SUP 10.7.1 R) and an application must be made to the FSA for approval of the individual before the function is performed under section 59 of the Act (Approval for particular arrangements). There are exceptions from this in SUP 10.1 (Approved persons - Application).

5

2

If the allocation is to more than one individual, can they perform the functions, or aspects of the functions, separately?

If the functions are allocated to joint chief executives under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2, they are expected to act jointly. If the functions are allocated to an individual under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2, in addition to individuals under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 3, the former may normally be expected to perform a leading role in relation to the functions that reflects his position. Otherwise, yes.

3

What is meant by "appropriately allocate" in this context?

The allocation of functions should be compatible with delivering compliance with Principle 3, SYSC 2.1.1 R and SYSC 3.1.1 R. The FSA considers that allocation to one or two individuals is likely to be appropriate for most firms.

4

If a committee of management governs a firm or group, can the functions be allocated to every member of that committee?

Yes, as long as the allocation remains appropriate (see Question 3).If the firm also has an individual as chief executive, then the functions must be allocated to that individual as well under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2 (see Question 7).

5

Does the definition of chief executive include the possessor of equivalent responsibilities with another title, such as a managing director or managing partner?

Yes.

6

Is it possible for a firm to have more than one individual as its chief executive?

Although unusual, some firm may wish the responsibility of a chief executive to be held jointly by more than one individual. In that case, each of them will be a chief executive and the functions must be allocated to all of them under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2 (see also Questions 2 and 7).

7

If a firm has an individual as chief executive, must the functions be allocated to that individual?

Normally, yes, under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2.

But if the firm is a body corporate and a member of a group, the functions may, instead of to the firm's chief executive, be allocated to a director or senior manager from the group responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division, so long as this is appropriate (see Question 3). Such individuals willnevertheless require approval by the FSA (see Question 1).

If the firm chooses to allocate the functions to a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of a relevant group division, the FSA would expect that individual to be of a seniority equivalent to or greater than a chief executive of the firm for the allocation to be appropriate.

See also Question 14.

8

If a firm has a chief executive, can the functions be allocated to other individuals in addition to the chief executive?

Yes. SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 3, permits a firm to allocate the functions, additionally, to the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers as long as this is appropriate (see Question 3).

9

What if a firm does not have a chief executive?

Normally, the functions must be allocated to one or more individuals selected from the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 3.

But if the firm:

(1) is a body corporate and a member of a group; and

(2) the group has a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division;

then the functions must be allocated to that individual (together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate) under SYSC 2.1.4 R, column 2.2

10

What do you mean by "group division within which some or all of the firm's regulated activities fall"?

A "division" in this context should be interpreted by reference to geographical operations, product lines or any other method by which the group's business is divided.

If the firm's regulated activities fall within more than one division and the firm does not wish to allocate the functions to its chief executive, the allocation must, under SYSC 2.1.4 R, be to:

(1) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group; or

(2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of one of those divisions;

together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate. (See also Questions 7 and 9.)

11

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 2.1.3R apply to an overseas firm which is not an incoming EEA firm, incoming Treaty firm or UCITS qualifier?

The firm must appropriately allocate those functions to one or more individuals, in accordance with SYSC 2.1.4 R, but:

(1) The responsibilities that must be apportioned and the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to activities carried on from a UK establishment with certain exceptions (see SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.7 R)6. Note that SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.10 R6 does not extend the territorial scope of SYSC 2 for an overseas firm.

(2) The chief executive of an overseas firm is the person responsible for the conduct of the firm's business within the United Kingdom (see the definition of "chief executive"). This might, for example, be the manager of the firm's UK establishment, or it might be the chief executive of the firm as a whole, if he has that responsibility.

The apportionment and oversight function applies to such a firm, unless it falls within a particular exception from the approved persons regime (see Question 1).

66

12

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 2.1.3R apply to an incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm?

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.1R6and SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8 R6restrict the application of SYSC 2.1.3 R for such a firm. Accordingly:

(1) Such a firm is not required to allocate the function of dealing with apportionment in SYSC 2.1.3 R (1).

(2) Such a firm is required to allocate the function of oversight in SYSC 2.1.3 R (2). However, the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to matters which the FSA, as Host State regulator, is entitled to regulate (there is guidance on this in SUP 13A Annex 2 G3). Those are primarily, but not exclusively, the systems and controls relating to the conduct of the firm's activities carried on from its UK branch.

(3) Such a firm need not allocate the function of oversight to its chief executive; it must allocate it to one or more directors and senior managers of the firm or the firm's group under SYSC 2.1.4 R, row (2).

(4) An incoming EEA firm which has provision only for cross border services is not required to allocate either function if it does not carry on regulated activities in the United Kingdom; for example if they fall within the overseas persons exclusions in article 72 of the Regulated Activities Order.

See also Questions 1 and 15.1

663

13

What about a firm that is a partnership or a limited liability partnership?

The FSA envisages that most if not all partners or members will be either directors or senior managers, but this will depend on the constitution of the partnership (particularly in the case of a limited partnership) or limited liability partnership. A partnership or limited liability partnership may also have a chief executive (see Question 5). A limited liability partnership is a body corporate and, if a member of a group, will fall within SYSC 2.1.4 R, row (1) or (2).

14

What if generally accepted principles of good corporate governance recommend that the chief executive should not be involved in an aspect of corporate governance?

The Note to SYSC 2.1.4 R provides that the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager need not be involved in such circumstances. For example, the UK Corporate Governance Code7 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of non-executive directors to be responsible for oversight of the audit. That aspect of the oversight function may therefore be allocated to the members of such a committee without involving the chief executive. Such individuals may require approval by the FSA in relation to that function (see Question 1).

7

15

What about electronic commerce activities carried on from an establishment in another EEA State with or for a person in the United Kingdom?4

4

SYSC does not apply to an incoming ECA provider acting as such.1

4
APER 4.5.3ERP
Failing to take reasonable steps to apportion responsibilities for all areas of the business under the approved person's control falls within APER 4.5.2 E (see APER 4.5.11 G).
APER 4.5.5ERP
Behaviour of the type referred to in APER 4.5.4 E includes, but is not limited to:(1) implementing confusing or uncertain reporting lines (see APER 4.5.12 G);(2) implementing confusing or uncertain authorisation levels (see APER 4.5.13 G);(3) implementing confusing or uncertain job descriptions and responsibilities (see APER 4.5.13 G).
APER 4.5.6ERP
In the case of an approved person who is responsible under SYSC 2.1.3 R (1) or SYSC 4.4.5 R (1)1 for dealing with the apportionment of responsibilities under SYSC 2.1.1 R or SYSC 4.4.3 R1, failing to take reasonable care to maintain a clear and appropriate apportionment of significant responsibilities among the firm'sdirectors and senior managers falls within APER 4.5.2 E.
APER 4.5.7ERP
Behaviour of the type referred to in APER 4.5.6 E includes, but is not limited to:(1) failing to review regularly the significant responsibilities which the firm is required to apportion under APER 2.1.1 G;(2) failing to act where that review shows that those significant responsibilities have not been clearly apportioned.
APER 4.5.8ERP
Failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that suitable individuals are responsible for those aspects of the business under the control of the individual performing a significant influence function falls within APER 4.5.2 E (see APER 4.5.14 G).
APER 4.5.9ERP
Behaviour of the type referred to in APER 4.5.8 E includes, but is not limited to:(1) failing to review the competence, knowledge, skills and performance of staff to assess their suitability to fulfil their duties, despite evidence that their performance is unacceptable (see APER 4.5.14 G);(2) giving undue weight to financial performance when considering the suitability or continuing suitability of an individual for a particular role (see APER 4.5.14 G);(3) allowing managerial
APER 4.5.12GRP
The organisation of the business and the responsibilities of those within it should be clearly defined (see APER 4.5.5 E (1)). Reporting lines should be clear to staff. Where staff have dual reporting lines there is a greater need to ensure that the responsibility and accountability of each individual line manager is clearly set out and understood.
SYSC 3.2.2GRP
A firm's reporting lines should be clear and appropriate having regard to the nature, scale and complexity of its business. These reporting lines, together with clear management responsibilities, should be communicated as appropriate within the firm.
SYSC 3.2.3GRP
(1) A firm'sgoverning body is likely to delegate many functions and tasks for the purpose of carrying out its business. When functions or tasks are delegated, either to employees or to appointed representatives or, where applicable, its tied agents8, appropriate safeguards should be put in place.(2) When there is delegation, a firm should assess whether the recipient is suitable to carry out the delegated function or task, taking into account the degree of responsibility involved.(3)
SYSC 3.2.4GRP
(1) The guidance relevant to delegation within the firm is also relevant to external delegation ('outsourcing'). A firm cannot contract out its regulatory obligations. So, for example, under Principle 3 a firm should take reasonable care to supervise the discharge of outsourced functions by its contractor.(2) A firm should take steps to obtain sufficient information from its contractor to enable it to assess the impact of outsourcing on its systems and controls.
SYSC 3.2.5GRP
Where it is made possible and appropriate by the nature, scale and complexity of its business, a firm should segregate the duties of individuals and departments in such a way as to reduce opportunities for financial crime or contravention of requirements and standards under the regulatory system. For example, the duties of front-office and back-office staff should be segregated so as to prevent a single individual initiating, processing and controlling transactions.
SYSC 3.2.6HRRP
5A firm must allocate to a director or senior manager (who may also be the money laundering reporting officer) overall responsibility within the firm for the establishment and maintenance of effective anti-money laundering systems and controls.
SYSC 3.2.8RRP
(1) A firm which carries on designated investment business with or for retail clients or professional clients8 must allocate to a director or senior manager the function of:8(a) having responsibility for oversight of the firm's compliance; and(b) reporting to the governing body in respect of that responsibility.1(2) In 10 (1) "compliance" means compliance with the rules in:(a) COBS8(Conduct of Business); 8(b) COLL ( Collective Investment Schemes sourcebook)10; and1010(c) CASS
SYSC 3.2.9GRP
(1) SUP 10.7.8 R uses SYSC 3.2.8 R to describe the controlled function, known as the compliance oversight function, of acting in the capacity of a director or senior manager to whom this function is allocated.(2) The rules referred to in SYSC 3.2.8 R (2) are the minimum area of focus for the firm'scompliance oversight function. A firm is free to give additional responsibilities to a person performing this function if it wishes.
SYSC 3.2.16GRP
9(1) Depending on the nature, scale and complexity of its business, it may be appropriate for a firm to delegate much of the task of monitoring the appropriateness and effectiveness of its systems and controls to an internal audit function. An internal audit function should have clear responsibilities and reporting lines to an audit committee or appropriate senior manager, be adequately resourced and staffed by competent individuals, be independent of the day-to-day activities
SYSC 5.1.7RRP
The senior personnel of a common platform firm must define arrangements concerning the segregation of duties within the firm and the prevention of conflicts of interest.[Note: annex V paragraph 1 of the Banking Consolidation Directive]
SYSC 5.1.7AGRP
3Other firms should take account of the segregation of functions rules (SYSC 5.1.6 R and SYSC 5.1.7 R) as if they were guidance (and as if "should" appeared in those rules instead of "must") as explained in SYSC 1 Annex 1.3.3 G4.
SYSC 5.1.8GRP
The effective segregation of duties is an important element in the internal controls of a firm in the prudential context. In particular, it helps to ensure that no one individual is completely free to commit a firm's assets or incur liabilities on its behalf. Segregation can also help to ensure that a firm'sgoverning body receives objective and accurate information on financial performance, the risks faced by the firm and the adequacy of its systems.
SYSC 5.1.9GRP
A firm should normally ensure that no single individual has unrestricted authority to do all of the following:3(1) initiate a transaction;(2) bind the firm;(3) make payments; and(4) account for it.
SYSC 5.1.10GRP
Where a firm is unable to ensure the complete segregation of duties (for example, because it has a limited number of staff), it should ensure that there are adequate compensating controls in place (for example, frequent review of an area by relevant senior managers).3
CASS 1A.3.3RRP
(1) Subject to (2), a firm must make and retain an appropriate record of the person to whom responsibility is allocated in accordance with CASS 1A.3.1 R.(2) A CASS small firm must make and retain such a record only where it allocates responsibility to a person other than the person in that firm who performs the compliance oversight function.(3) A firm must ensure that the record made under this rule is retained for a period of five years after it is made.
REC 2.5.3GRP
In assessing whether the systems and controls used by a UK recognised body in the performance of its relevant functions are adequate and appropriate for the scale and nature of its business, the FSA may have regard to the UK recognised body's:(1) arrangements for managing, controlling and carrying out its relevant functions, including: (a) the distribution of duties and responsibilities among its key individuals and the departments of the UK recognised body responsible for performing
REC 2.5.6GRP
In assessing a UK recognised body's systems and controls for assessing and managing risk, the FSA may also have regard to the extent to which these systems and controls enable the UK recognised body to:(1) identify all the general, operational, legal and market risks wherever they arise in its activities;(2) measure and control the different types of risk;(3) allocate responsibility for risk management to persons with appropriate knowledge and expertise; and(4) provide sufficient,
REC 2.5.13GRP
The FSA may have regard to the arrangements a UK recognised body makes to structure itself and to allocate responsibility for decisions so that it can continue to take proper regulatory decisions notwithstanding any conflicts of interest, including:(1) the size and composition of the governing body and relevant committees; (2) the roles and responsibilities of key individuals, especially where they also have responsibilities in other organisations; (3) the arrangements for transferring
REC 2.5.17GRP
A UK recognised body's arrangements for internal and external audit will be an important part of its systems and controls. In assessing the adequacy of these arrangements, the FSA may have regard to: (1) the size, composition and terms of reference of any audit committee of the UK recognised body'sgoverning body;(2) the frequency and scope of external audit; (3) the provision and scope of internal audit; (4) the staffing and resources of the UK recognised body's internal audit
SYSC 4.4.3RRP
A firm must take reasonable care to maintain a clear and appropriate apportionment of significant responsibilities among its directors and senior managers in such a way that:(1) it is clear who has which of those responsibilities; and(2) the business and affairs of the firm can be adequately monitored and controlled by the directors, relevant senior managers and governing body of the firm.
SYSC 4.4.5RRP

A firm must appropriately allocate to one or more individuals, in accordance with the following table, the functions of:

  1. (1)

    dealing with the apportionment of responsibilities under SYSC 4.4.3 R; and

  2. (2)

    overseeing the establishment and maintenance of systems and controls under SYSC 4.1.1 R.

    3. 1: Firm type

    2: Allocation of both functions must be to the following individual, if any (see Note):

    3: Allocation to one or more individuals selected from this column is compulsory if there is no allocation to an individual in column 2, but is otherwise optional and additional:

    (1) A firm which is a body corporate and is a member of a group, other than a firm in row (2)

    (1) the firm'schief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one); or

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    (2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of:

    (a) the group; or

    (b) a group division within which some or all of the firm'sregulated activities fall

    (2) An incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm (note: only the functions in SYSC 4.4.5R (2) must be allocated)

    (not applicable)

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    (3) Any other firm

    the firm'schief executive (and all of them jointly, if more than one)

    the firm's and its group's:

    (1) directors; and

    (2) senior managers

    Note: Column 2 does not require the involvement of the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager in an aspect of corporate governance if that would be contrary to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance.
SYSC 4.4.6GRP

Frequently asked questions about allocation of functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R

Question

Answer

1

Does an individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R need to be an approved person?

An individual to whom a function is allocated under SYSC 4.4.5 R will be performing the apportionment and oversight function (CF 8, see SUP 10.7.1 R) and an application must be made to the FSA for approval of the individual before the function is performed under section 59 of the Act (Approval for particular arrangements). There are exceptions from this in SUP 10.1 (Approved persons - Application).

2

If the allocation is to more than one individual, can they perform the functions, or aspects of the functions, separately?

If the functions are allocated to joint chief executives under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, they are expected to act jointly. If the functions are allocated to an individual under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2, in addition to individuals under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, the former may normally be expected to perform a leading role in relation to the functions that reflects his position. Otherwise, yes.

3

What is meant by "appropriately allocate" in this context?

The allocation of functions should be compatible with delivering compliance with Principle 3, SYSC 4.4.3 R and SYSC 4.1.1 R. The FSA considers that allocation to one or two individuals is likely to be appropriate for most firms.

4

If a committee of management governs a firm or group, can the functions be allocated to every member of that committee?

Yes, as long as the allocation remains appropriate (see Question 3). If the firm also has an individual as chief executive, then the functions must be allocated to that individual as well under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see Question 7).

5

Does the definition of chief executive include the possessor of equivalent responsibilities with another title, such as a managing director or managing partner?

Yes.

6

Is it possible for a firm to have more than one individual as its chief executive?

Although unusual, some firms may wish the responsibility of a chief executive to be held jointly by more than one individual. In that case, each of them will be a chief executive and the functions must be allocated to all of them under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2 (see also Questions 2 and 7).

7

If a firm has an individual as chief executive, must the functions be allocated to that individual?

Normally, yes, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

But if the firm is a body corporate and a member of a group, the functions may, instead of being allocated to the firm'schief executive, be allocated to a director or senior manager from the group responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division, so long as this is appropriate (see Question 3). Such individuals will nevertheless require approval by the FSA (see Question 1).

If the firm chooses to allocate the functions to a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of a relevant group division, the FSA would expect that individual to be of a seniority equivalent to or greater than a chief executive of the firm for the allocation to be appropriate.

See also Question 14.

8

If a firm has a chief executive, can the functions be allocated to other individuals in addition to the chief executive?

Yes. SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3, permits a firm to allocate the functions, additionally, to the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers as long as this is appropriate (see Question 3).

9

What if a firm does not have a chief executive?

Normally, the functions must be allocated to one or more individuals selected from the firm's (or where applicable the group's) directors and senior managers under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 3.

But if the firm:

(1) is a body corporate and a member of a group; and

(2) the group has a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group or of a relevant group division;

then the functions must be allocated to that individual (together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate) under SYSC 4.4.5 R, column 2.

10

What do you mean by "group division within which some or all of the firm's regulated activities fall"?

A "division" in this context should be interpreted by reference to geographical operations, product lines or any other method by which the group's business is divided.

If the firm's regulated activities fall within more than one division and the firm does not wish to allocate the functions to its chief executive, the allocation must, under SYSC 4.4.5 R, be to:

(1) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of the group; or (2) a director or senior manager responsible for the overall management of one of those divisions;

together, optionally, with individuals from column 3 if appropriate. (See also Questions 7 and 9.)

11

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an overseas firm which is not an incoming EEA firm, incoming Treaty firm or UCITS qualifier?

The firm must appropriately allocate those functions to one or more individuals, in accordance with SYSC 4.4.5 R, but:

(1) The responsibilities that must be apportioned and the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to activities carried on from a UK establishment with certain exceptions (see

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R). Note that SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.10R does not extend the territorial scope of SYSC 4.4 for an overseas firm.

(2) The chief executive of an overseas firm is the person responsible for the conduct of the firm's business within the United Kingdom (see the definition of "chief executive"). This might, for example, be the manager of the firm'sUK establishment, or it might be the chief executive of the firm as a whole, if he has that responsibility.

The apportionment and oversight function applies to such a firm, unless it falls within a particular exception from the approved persons regime (see Question 1).

12

How does the requirement to allocate the functions in SYSC 4.4.5 R apply to an incoming EEA firm or incoming Treaty firm?

SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.1R(2) and SYSC 1 Annex 1.1.8R restrict the application of SYSC 4.4.5 R for such a firm. Accordingly:

(1) Such a firm is not required to allocate the function of dealing with apportionment in SYSC 4.4.5R (1).

(2) Such a firm is required to allocate the function of oversight in SYSC 4.4.5R (2). However, the systems and controls that must be overseen are those relating to matters which the FSA, as Host State regulator, is entitled to regulate (there is guidance on this in SUP 13A Annex 2). Those are primarily, but not exclusively, the systems and controls relating to the conduct of the firm's activities carried on from its UK branch.

(3) Such a firm need not allocate the function of oversight to its chief executive; it must allocate it to one or more directors and senior managers of the firm or the firm'sgroup under SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (2).

(4) An incoming EEA firm which has provision only for cross border services is not required to allocate either function if it does not carry on regulated activities in the United Kingdom; for example if they fall within the overseas persons exclusions in article 72 of the Regulated Activities Order.

See also Questions 1 and 15.

13

What about a firm that is a partnership or a limited liability partnership?

The FSA envisages that most if not all partners or members will be either directors or senior managers, but this will depend on the constitution of the partnership (particularly in the case of a limited partnership) or limited liability partnership. A partnership or limited liability partnership may also have a chief executive (see Question 5). A limited liability partnership is a body corporate and, if a member of a group, will fall within SYSC 4.4.5 R, row (1) or (2).

14

What if generally accepted principles of good corporate governance recommend that the chief executive should not be involved in an aspect of corporate governance?

The Note to SYSC 4.4.5 R provides that the chief executive or other executive director or senior manager need not be involved in such circumstances. For example, the UK Corporate Governance Code5 recommends that the board of a listed company should establish an audit committee of non-executive directors to be responsible for oversight of the audit. That aspect of the oversight function may therefore be allocated to the members of such a committee without involving the chief executive. Such individuals may require approval by the FSA in relation to that function (see Question 1).

5

15

What about incoming electronic commerce activities carried on from an establishment in another EEA State with or for a person in the United Kingdom?

SYSC does not apply to an incoming ECA provider acting as such.
SYSC 8.1.6RRP
If a firm outsources critical or important operational functions or any relevant services and activities, it remains fully responsible for discharging all of its obligations under the regulatory system and must comply, in particular, with the following conditions:2(1) the outsourcing must not result in the delegation by senior personnel of their responsibility;(2) the relationship and obligations of the firm towards its clients under the regulatory system must not be altered;(3)
SYSC 3.1.5GRP
SYSC 2.1.3 R (2) prescribes how a firm must allocate the function of overseeing the establishment and maintenance of systems and controls described in SYSC 3.1.1 R.
SYSC 3.1.6RRP
2A firm which is not a common platform firm must employ personnel with the skills, knowledge and expertise necessary for the discharge of the responsibilities allocated to them.
DEPP 6.2.9AGRP
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) 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,
APER 4.6.5ERP
Delegating the authority for dealing with an issue or a part of the business to an individual or individuals (whether in-house or outside contractors) without reasonable grounds for believing that the delegate had the necessary capacity, competence, knowledge, seniority or skill to deal with the issue or to take authority for dealing with part of the business, falls within APER 4.6.2 E (see APER 4.6.13 G).
DEPP 6.5B.2GRP
(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;
COLL 5.7.11GRP
An authorised fund manager carrying out due diligence for the purpose of the rules in this section should make enquiries or otherwise obtain information needed to enable him properly to consider:(1) whether the experience, expertise, qualifications and professional standing of the second scheme's investment manager is adequate for the type and complexity of the second scheme;(2) the adequacy of the regulatory, legal and accounting regimes applicable to the second scheme and its
SYSC 13.6.4GRP
A firm should have regard to SYSC 13.6.3 G in relation to approved persons, people occupying positions of high personal trust (for example, security administration, payment and settlement functions); and people occupying positions requiring significant technical competence (for example, derivatives trading and technical security administration). A firm should also consider the rules and guidance for approved persons in other parts of the Handbook (including APER and SUP) and the
LR 8.6.12GRP
A sponsor will generally be regarded as having appropriate 4systems and controls if there are:4(1) clear and effective reporting lines in place (including clear and effective management responsibilities)4;(2) effective systems and controls for the appropriate4 supervision of employees providing sponsor services4;44(3) effective systems and controls to ensure its compliance with all applicable listing rules when performing sponsor services4;(4) [deleted]44(5) effective arrangements