Related provisions for SYSC 22.5.14
1 - 20 of 78 items.
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
(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.
(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
Table: Examples of factors to take into account when deciding whether old misconduct is sufficiently serious to discloseFactors to take into accountComments(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
(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.
(1) In the FCA's view: (a) a firm's staff includes its employees; (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; (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; (d) firms should consider how the examples in the table in (2) apply
(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
(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 (6deferred 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 conditions
(1) Sections 137H and 137I of the Act enables the FCA6 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 prohibitions on guaranteed
(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
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,
(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
(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
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
(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
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
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
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.