Related provisions for SYSC 22.5.14

1 - 20 of 77 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 5.2.37GRP
For the purposes of the definition of the significant management FCA-specified significant-harm function, the following additional factors about the firm should be considered:(1) the size and significance of the firm's business in the United Kingdom – for example, a firm carrying on designated investment business may have a large number of certification employees (for example, in excess of 100 individuals);(2) the number of regulated activities carried on, or proposed to be carried
SYSC 22.5.2GRP
(1) For example, this chapter does not necessarily require a firm to include in a reference the fact that an ex-employee left while disciplinary proceedings were pending or had started. Including such information is likely to imply that there is cause for concern about the ex-employee but the firm may not have established that the ex-employee was actually responsible for misconduct.(2) However, a firm may include such information in a reference if it wishes to (see SYSC 22.3.
SYSC 22.5.5GRP
(1) An example of the general duty described in SYSC 22.5.4G is that fairness will normally require a firm to have given an employee an opportunity to comment on information in a reference. The firm might do this through, for example, disciplinary proceedings.(2) Paragraph (1) does not mean that the firm should provide an opportunity to comment on the reference itself, as opposed to the allegations on which it is based. (3) A firm may have given the employee an opportunity to
SYSC 22.5.7GRP
The obligation to give a reference for an employee or ex-employee applies however the employment ended or is going to end. For example, it applies whether it ended through resignation, redundancy, dismissal or fixed term work, a secondment or temporary work coming to an end.
SYSC 22.5.11GRP

Table: Examples of factors to take into account when deciding whether old misconduct is sufficiently serious to disclose

Factors to take into account

Comments

(A) Whether P has committed a serious breach of individual conduct requirements.

Individual conduct requirements has the same meaning as in Part Two of SYSC 22 Annex 1R (Template for regulatory references given by relevant authorised persons and disclosure requirements).

Factors to take into account in deciding whether the breach is serious include the following.

(1) The extent to which the conduct was deliberate or reckless.

(2) The extent to which the conduct was dishonest.

(3) Whether the breaches are frequent or whether they have continued over a long period of time. The fact that breaches were frequent or repeated may increase the likelihood that they should be disclosed since the breaches may show a pattern of non-compliance.

(4) The extent of loss, or risk of loss, caused to existing, past or potential investors, depositors, policyholders or other counterparties or customers.

(5) The reasons for the breach. For example, where the breach was caused by lack of experience which has been remedied by training or further experience, it is less likely that the breach will still be relevant.

(B) Whether the conduct caused B to breach requirements of the regulatory system or P was concerned in a contravention of such a requirement by B and, in each case, whether P’s conduct was itself serious.

(1) The factors in (A) are relevant to whether P’s conduct was serious.

(2) The seriousness of the breach by B is relevant. The factors in (A) are also relevant to this.

(3) A breach by B of certain requirements is always likely to be serious under (2). Breach of the threshold conditions is an example. However that does not mean that P’s involvement will automatically be serious.

(C) Whether P’s conduct involved dishonesty (whether or not also involving a criminal act).

Dishonesty is an important factor but it is not automatically decisive in every case. For instance, a small one-off case of dishonesty many years ago may not be sufficiently serious to require disclosure.

(D) Whether the conduct would have resulted in B’s dismissing P, had P still been working for B, based on B's disciplinary policies and the requirements of the law about unfair dismissal.

(E) Whether the conduct was such that, if B was considering P for a role today and became aware of the historical conduct, B would not employ P today notwithstanding the time that has passed.

Note 1: P refers to the employee about whom the reference is being written.

Note 2: B refers to the firm giving the reference.
SYSC 22.5.12GRP
(1) An example of information that may be relevant under SYSC 22.2.2R(1) to (3) is the fact that the employee has breached a requirement in APER.(2) This means that any firm (not just one that is a full scope regulatory reference firm) should consider whether it needs to disclose a breach of APER when giving a reference under this chapter.
SYSC 19C.3.6GRP
  1. (1)

    In the FCA's view:

    1. (a)

      a firm's staff includes its employees;

    2. (b)

      a person who performs a significant influence function for, or is a senior manager of, a firm would normally be expected to be part of the firm'sBIPRU Remuneration Code staff;

    3. (c)

      the table in (2) provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of key positions that should, subject to (d), be within a firm's definition of staff who are risk takers;

    4. (d)

      firms should consider how the examples in the table in (2) apply to their own organisational structure;

      1
    5. (e)

      firms may find it useful to set their own metrics to identify their risk takers based, for example, on trading limits; and

    6. (f)

      a firm should treat a person as being BIPRU Remuneration Code staff in relation to remuneration in respect of a given performance year if they were BIPRU Remuneration Code staff for any part of that year.

    [Note: The FCA has published guidance on the application of particular rules on remuneration structures in relation to individuals who are BIPRU Remuneration Code staff for only part of a given performance year. This guidance is available at www.fca.org.uk/firms/remuneration

    .]

  2. (2)

    High-level category

    Suggested business lines

    Heads of significant business lines (including regional heads) and any individuals or groups within their control who have a material impact on the firm's risk profile

    Fixed income

    Foreign exchange

    Commodities

    Securitisation

    Sales areas

    Investment banking (including mergers and acquisitions advisory)

    Commercial banking

    Equities

    Structured finance

    Lending quality

    Trading areas

    Research

    Heads of support and control functions and other individuals within their control who have a material impact on the firm's risk profile

    Credit/market/operational risk

    Legal

    Treasury controls

    Human resources

    Compliance

    Internal audit
SYSC 19C.3.28GRP
Where a firm makes a loss, the FCA generally expects no variable remuneration to be awarded. Variable remuneration may nevertheless be justified, for example to incentivise employees involved in new business ventures which could be loss-making in their early stages.
SYSC 19C.3.53GRP
(1) Variable remuneration may be justified, for example, to incentivise employees involved in new business ventures which could be loss-making in their early stages. (2) The governing body (or, where appropriate, the remuneration committee) should approve performance adjustment policies, including the triggers under which adjustment would take place. The FCA may ask firms to provide a copy of their policies and expects firms to make adequate records of material decisions to operate
SYSC 19A.3.54RRP
(1) Subject to (1A) to (3), the rules1 in SYSC 19A Annex 1.1R to 1.4R1 apply in relation to the prohibitions on Remuneration Code staff being remunerated in the ways specified in:11(a) SYSC 19A.3.40 R (guaranteed variable remuneration);(b) SYSC 19A.3.49 R (non-deferred variable remuneration); and(c) (replacing payments recovered or property transferred).(1A) Paragraph (1) applies only to those prohibitions as they apply in relation to a firm that satisfies at least one of the
SYSC 19A.3.55GRP
(1) Sections 137H and 137I of the Act enables the appropriate regulator to make rules that render void any provision of an agreement that contravenes specified prohibitions in the Remuneration Code, and that provide for the recovery of any payment made, or other property transferred, in pursuance of such a provision. SYSC 19A.3.53A R and1SYSC 19A.3.54 R (together with SYSC 19A Annex 1) are such rules1 and render1 void provisions of an agreement that contravene the specified
SYSC 19D.3.68GRP
(1) Sections 137H and 137I of the Act enable the FCA to make rules that render void any provision of an agreement that contravenes specified prohibitions in the dual-regulated firms Remuneration Code, and that provide for the recovery of any payment made, or other property transferred, in pursuance of such a provision.(2) SYSC 19D.3.66R and SYSC 19D.3.67R (together with SYSC 19D Annex 1) are:(a) rules referred to in (1) that render void provisions of an agreement that contravene
SYSC 19B.1.18AGRP
(1) 2£500,000 is a particularly high amount for the purpose of SYSC 19B.1.18R (4).(2) Paragraph (1) is without prejudice to the possibility of lower sums being considered a particularly high amount.(3) Whilst any variable remuneration component of £500,000 or more paid to AIFM Remuneration Code staff should be subject to 60% deferral, firms should also consider whether lesser amounts should be considered to be 'particularly high', taking account, for example, of whether there
SYSC 19E.2.21GRP
(1) £500,000 should be considered a particularly high amount for the purpose of SYSC 19E.2.20R(4).(2) While any variable remuneration component of £500,000 or more paid to UCITS Remuneration code staff should be subject to 60% deferral, management companies should also consider whether lesser amounts should be considered to be ‘particularly high’. (3) Management companies should take into account, for example, whether there are significant differences within UCITS Remuneration
SYSC 18.3.4GRP
A firm’s training and development in line with SYSC 18.3.1R(2)(g) should include:(1) for all UK-based employees:(a) a statement that the firm takes the making of reportable concerns seriously;(b) a reference to the ability to report reportable concerns to the firm and the methods for doing so;(c) examples of events that might prompt the making of a reportable concern;(d) examples of action that might be taken by the firm after receiving a reportable concern by a whistleblower,
PERG 6.7.1GRP
Medical schemes under which an employer operates or contributes to a fund, from which the employee has a right to a benefit (for example, a payment) on the occurrence of a specified illness or injury, are likely to be insurance schemes. This will be the case whether the employee makes any contribution to the fund, or the scheme is funded by the employer as an emolument. The scheme would not be insurance, however, if the employer has an absolute discretion whether or not to provide
SYSC 22.6.2GRP
(1) A firm may have concluded that an employee is unfit or has breached COCON or APER (as described in questions (E) to (F) of Part One of SYSC 22 Annex 1R (Template for regulatory references given by relevant authorised persons and disclosure requirements)). However the firm may consider that the disclosure is incomplete without including mitigating circumstances.(2) For example, if the firm is reporting a breach of COCON it may consider that the breach is very uncharacteristic
SYSC 13.6.2GRP
A firm should establish and maintain appropriate systems and controls for the management of operational risks that can arise from employees. In doing so, a firm should have regard to:(1) its operational risk culture, and any variations in this or its human resource management practices, across its operations (including, for example, the extent to which the compliance culture is extended to in-house IT staff);(2) whether the way employees are remunerated exposes the firm to the
MAR 1.3.20GRP
The following descriptions are intended to assist in understanding certain behaviours which may constitute insider dealing under the Market Abuse Regulation and5 concern the definition of inside information relating to financial instruments other than commodityderivatives or emissions allowances or auctioned products based thereon:5(1) X, a director at B PLC has lunch with a friend, Y. X tells Y that his company has received a takeover offer that is at a premium
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.