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