Related provisions for DEPP 6A.3.1
1 - 5 of 5 items.
The FSA will consider it appropriate to impose a suspension or restriction
where it believes that such action will be a more effective and persuasive
deterrent than the imposition of a financial penalty alone. This is likely
to be the case where the FSA considers that direct and visible action in relation to a particular breach is necessary. Examples of circumstances
where the FSA may
consider it appropriate to impose a suspension or restriction include:(1) where the FSA (or
The FSA expects usually to take the following approach in respect of
the interaction between a suspension or restriction and a financial penalty
or public censure:(1) The FSA will determine which sanction, or combination of sanctions, is
appropriate for the breach.(2) If the FSA, following the approach set out in DEPP 6.2, considers it appropriate
to impose a financial penalty, it will calculate the appropriate level of
the financial penalty, following the approach set out in
The FSA may depart from the approach set out in DEPP 6A.4.2 G.
For example, the FSA may
at the outset consider that a financial penalty is the only appropriate sanction
for a breach but, having determined
the appropriate level of financial penalty, may consider it appropriate to
reduce the amount of the financial penalty for serious financial hardship
reasons. In such a situation, the FSA may consider it appropriate to impose a suspension or restriction
even if the FSA at
the
The following factors may be relevant
to determining the appropriate length of the period of suspension or restriction
to be imposed on a person under
the Act:(1) DeterrenceWhen determining
the appropriate length of the period of suspension or restriction, the FSA will
have regard to the principal purpose for which it imposes sanctions, namely
to promote high standards of regulatory and/or market conduct by deterring persons who have committed breaches from
committing further