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:
where the person has failed properly to carry out an agreed redress package or other agreed remedial measures;
where the misconduct appears to be widespread across a number of individuals across a particular business area (suggesting a poor compliance culture);
if, in accordance with DEPP 6.5D, the FSA considers that a proposed penalty would cause the subject of enforcement action serious financial hardship and that it is appropriate to reduce the proposed penalty.
The FSA expects usually to suspend or restrict a person from carrying out activities directly linked to the breach. However, in certain circumstances the FSA may also suspend or restrict a person from carrying out activities that are not directly linked to the breach, for example, where an authorised person's relevant business area no longer exists or has been restructured.