The Financial Ombudsman does not have the power to make a direction that would require a firm to make a payment that exceeds the statutory cap. If the cost of compliance with a direction is unknown at the time when the direction is made it is subject to an implicit limitation that it will not be enforceable beyond the statutory cap once reached. An order by the Ombudsman for a loss assessment and redress in accordance with regulatory guidance is not an order for the payment of money particularly ...
|
The FSA issued a prohibition order against the Director of Powell Price & Company Limited for accepting insurance premiums without passing them over to insurers; using client money to cover the Firm’s running costs; and failing to manage the Firm’s client account.
|
A fine of £122,500 was imposed for carrying out the regulated activity of Discretionary Portfolio Management without the necessary permission under FSMA; for inadequate record keeping of client details to substantiate that proper investment advice had been given; for insufficient consideration of clients’ risk profiles prior to investment decisions; and inadequate communications with clients. The fine reflect maximum discount under the FSA’s executive settlement process of 30%.
|
For the first time the FSA fined a private bank for deficient anti-fraud controls. In 2002 the FSA warned the bank about its risk management procedures. The bank’s own internal reviews had also identified a problem. However the risk management systems were not changed permitting a senior employee to defraud the bank of £1.4 million.
|
A complaint arising out of pensions advice was made to the FOS. The FOS directed Mr Haworth to carry out a loss assessment and to pay compensation of £300. Mr Howarth indicated to the FOS that he thought he would be unlikely, if ever, to make the payment required. In the meantime Mr Howarth sought authorisation in respect of general insurance business. This was granted on 14th January 2005. As Mr Howarth had ceased to trade the complainant’s file had been passed to the Financial Services Compens ...
|
The FSA fined Sesame Limited £330,000 for failing to handle complaints in respect of Structured Capital at Risk Products, for failing to train properly the individual complaints handlers or to monitor them and for rejecting approximately 350 customer complaints without insufficient evidence.
|
The FSA issued its first penalty for accounting failures and fined David Whistance a former finance director at Willams de Broe £30,000 for failing to “exercise due skill, care and diligence in carrying out his role” and for failing to ensure the company’s procedures met with regulatory requirements.
|
The FSA made a prohibition order in respect of failures of due skill, care and diligence and lack of compliance with regulatory standards in respect of ensuring that underwriting was in place for various policies sold, holding client money contrary to a condition of the company’s Part IV permission
|
Approved Person. The FSA decided to impose a financial penalty in the sum of ₤52,500 (reduced from ₤75,000 for an early settlement) on Mr Roberto Casoni for failing to comply with a statement of principle in relation to his duties as an approved person. Mr Casoni was a research analyst at Citigroup’s Global Equity Reserch. He was a director and headed up the European equity research team that specialised in Italian stocks.
|
Disclosure of FSA Interviews. The FSA’s investigations into the split capital investment trusts had included interviews with employees of the Defendants. In an action brought by one of those trusts against its former advisers, the Defendants sought to withhold from inspection transcripts of evidence given by employees of the Defendants to the FSA as part of their investigation and later provided to the Defendants and the FSA’s warning notices on the basis of ss. 348 and 391 of the Financial Ser ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |