Related provisions for PERG 6.4.3
461 - 480 of 1081 items.
In an exceptionally urgent case the decision to give a supervisory notice may be taken by a member of the FCA's1 executive of at least director of division level if:1(1) FCA1 staff consider that the action should be taken before a recommendation to the Chairman or a Deputy Chairman of the RDC can be made; and1(2) an urgent decision on the proposed action is necessary to protect the interests of consumers.
In the circumstances described in DEPP 3.4.3 G, the FCA1 considers that it may be necessary for an FCA1 director of division to take the decision to give the supervisory notice even if he has been involved in establishing the evidence on which the decision is based, as permitted by section 395(3) of the Act. Where practicable, however, FCA1 staff will seek to ensure that the FCA1 director has not been so involved.1111
1The FCA will consider all the relevant circumstances when it determines the period of limitation. 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 and there may be other factors, not listed, that are relevant.
1The following factors may be relevant when determining the period of limitation: (1) whether the FCA may be minded to reapprove the approved person in the future, for example if the approved person takes action specified by the FCA during the period of limitation;(2) the approved person's expected lost earnings if the FCA imposes a short period of limitation; (3) whether imposing a short period of limitation would cause the approved person serious financial hardship.
1The FCA is committed to mediating appropriate cases; mediation and the involvement of a neutral mediator may help the FCA to reach an agreement with the person subject to enforcement action in circumstances where settlement might not otherwise be achieved or may not be achieved so efficiently and effectively.
(1) If the FCA considers that an issuer, a person discharging managerial responsibilities or a connected person has breached any of the disclosure requirements2 it may, subject to the provisions of the Act, impose on that person a financial penalty or publish a statement censuring that person.(2) If the FCA considers that a former director was knowingly concerned in a breach by an issuer it may, subject to the provisions of the Act, impose on that person a financial penalty
Recognised Auction Platforms Regulations, regulation 13
(1) In considering whether [an RAP] or applicant satisfies the [RAP recognition requirements], the [FCA1] may- (a) treat compliance by the [RAP] or applicant with the [recognition requirements or MiFID implementing requirements] applying to it as a [UK RIE] as conclusive evidence that the [RAP] or applicant satisfies any equivalent [RAP recognition requirements] applying to it under these [RAP regulations], taking into account any arrangements that would be necessary to meet the [RAP recognition requirements], and (b) take into account all relevant circumstances including the constitution of the person concerned. 1 |
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), [an RAP] or applicant may satisfy [RAP recognition requirements] by making arrangements for functions to be performed on its behalf by any other person. |
(3) Where [an RAP] or applicant makes arrangements of the kind mentioned in paragraph (2), the arrangements do not affect the responsibility imposed by these [RAP regulations] on the [RAP] or applicant to satisfy the [RAP recognition requirements], but it is in addition [an RAP recognition requirement] applying to the [RAP] or applicant that the person who performs (or is to perform) the functions is a fit and proper person who is able and willing to perform them. |
The FCA will consider exercising its own-initiative variation of approval power as a matter of urgency where:(1) the information available to it indicates serious concerns about the SMF manager or their firm that need to be addressed immediately; and(2) circumstances indicate that it is appropriate to use statutory powers immediately to require and/or prohibit certain actions by the SMF manager to ensure these concerns are addressed.
2The FCA is committed to ensuring that senior managers of firms fulfil their responsibilities. The FCA expects senior management to take responsibility for ensuring firms identify risks, develop appropriate systems and controls to manage those risks, and ensure that the systems and controls are effective in practice.1 Where senior managers have failed to meet our standards1, the FCA will, where appropriate, bring cases against individuals as well as, or instead of,1firms. The
2The FCA recognises that cases against individuals are very different in their nature from cases against corporate entities and the FCA is mindful that an individual will generally face greater risks from enforcement action, in terms of financial implications, reputation and livelihood than would a corporate entity. As such, cases against individuals tend to be more strongly contested, and at many practical levels are harder to prove. They also take longer to resolve. However,
2For cases involving firms,1approved persons or conduct rules staff1, the FCA will generally hold scoping discussions with the firm or individuals concerned close to the start of the investigation (and may do so in other cases). The purpose of these discussions is to give the firm or individuals concerned in the investigation an indication of: why the FCA has appointed investigators (including the nature of and reasons for the FCA's concerns); the scope of the investigation;
2In addition to the initial scoping discussions, there will be an ongoing dialogue with the firm or individuals throughout the investigative process. We will aim to give periodic updates at least on a quarterly basis covering the steps taken in the investigation to date as well as the next steps in the investigation and indicative timelines.3 Where the nature of the FCA's concerns changes significantly from that notified to the person under investigation and the FCA, having reconsidered
1When it decides whether to make an application for an order against debt avoidance pursuant to section 375 of the Act, the FCA will consider all relevant factors, including the following: (1) the extent to which the relevant transactions involved dealings in consumers' funds;
(2) whether it would be appropriate to petition for a winding up order, bankruptcy order, or sequestration award, in relation to the debtor and the extent to which the transaction could
1Paragraphs 13.12.2 to 13.13.1 contain information for insolvency practitioners and others about sending copies of petitions, notices and other documents to the FCA, and about making reports to the FCA. Insolvency practitioners and others have duties to give that information and those documents to the FCA under various sections in Part XXIV of the Act (Insolvency). Paragraphs 13.12.2 identifies the relevant sections of the Act that explain some of the duties.
1The FCA has powers under section 55J of the Act to vary or cancel an authorised person’sPart 4A permission and a power under section 55L to impose requirements on an authorised person. The FCA may use these powers where: (1) the person is failing or is likely to fail to satisfy the threshold conditions for which the FCA is responsible; (2) the person has not carried on a regulated activity to which the Part 4A permission relates for a period of at least 12 months (or six months
1The powers to vary and cancel a person’s Part 4A permission and to impose requirements are exercisable in the same circumstances. However, the statutory procedure for the exercise of the own-initiative powers is different to the statutory procedure for the exercise of the cancellation power and this may determine how the FCA acts in a given case. Certain types of behaviour which may cause the FCA to cancel permission in one case, may lead it to impose requirements, vary, or vary
Under Principle 11 and SUP 15.3.1 R, a firm must notify the FCA1 immediately of any operational risk matter of which the FCA1 would reasonably expect notice. SUP 15.3.8 G provides guidance on the occurrences that this requirement covers, which include a significant failure in systems and controls and a significant operational loss.
Regarding operational risk, matters of which the FCA1 would expect notice under Principle 11 include:(1) any significant operational exposures that a firm has identified;(2) the firm's invocation of a business continuity plan; and(3) any other significant change to a firm's organisation, infrastructure or business operating environment.
Where a UK recognised body has taken any disciplinary action against any member or any employee of a member, in respect of a breach of a rule relating to the carrying on by the UK recognised body of any of its regulatory functions, that body must immediately notify the FCA1of that event, and give:1(1) the name of the person concerned;(2) details of the disciplinary action taken by the UK recognised body; and(3) the UK recognised body's reasons for taking that disciplinary act
Where an appeal is lodged against any disciplinary action referred to in REC 3.20.1 R, the UK recognised body must immediately give the FCA1notice of that event, and:1(1) the name of the appellant and the grounds on which the appeal is based, immediately; and(2) the outcome of the appeal, when known.
The purpose of this chapter is
to provide guidance in
relation to the FCA's functions under the short selling regulation.2222Note: Other
parts of the Handbook that may
also be relevant to natural and legal persons to whom the short
selling regulation applies include:Chapter 2 of SUP (the Supervision
manual) and DEPP (the Decision Procedure and Penalties manual).The following
Regulatory Guides are also relevant:1. the Enforcement
Guide (EG)
1Decisions recorded in FCAfinal notices or supervisory notices will be taken into account in any subsequent case if the later case raises the same or similar issues to those considered by the FCA when it reached its earlier decision. Not to do so would expose the FCA to accusations of arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making. The need to look at earlier cases applies irrespective of whether the decisions were reached following settlement or consideration by the RDC or the Tribunal.
1The FCA recognises the importance of consistency in its decision-making and that it must consider the approach previously taken to, say, the application of a particular rule or Principle in a given context. This applies equally to consideration by the RDC or by the settlement decision makers when they look at action taken by the FCA in earlier, similar, cases. This is not to say that the FCA cannot take a different view to that taken in the earlier case: the facts of two enforcement