2017年-FCA英国金融行为监管局_implementation_of_the_enforcement_review_and_hbos_report_5页_180kb

报告摘要

Summary of Regulator Assessment: Qualifying Regulatory Provisions

Document Overview

Title of Proposal: PS17/1: Implementation of the Enforcement Review and HBOS Report
Lead Regulator: Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Date of Assessment: March 2017
Commencement Date: 31 January and 1 March 2017
Origin: Domestic
Cutting Red Tape Review Inclusion: No
Affected Areas: Whole of the UK

Core Content of the Proposal

The FCA introduced amendments to two key documents:

Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual (DEPP)
Enforcement Guide (EG)

These changes aim to implement recommendations from:

The Treasury's Review of enforcement decision-making (December 2014)
Andrew Green QC's HBOS Report (related to the collapse of HBOS)
Two internal proposals on enforcement procedures.

The amendments focus on improving the clarity and efficiency of the enforcement process, particularly in the context of time extensions and streamlined dispute resolution.

Main Changes and Key Points

1. Time Extension Considerations

Amendment: DEPP and EG include non-exhaustive factors for considering time extensions for Warning Notices and Preliminary Investigation Reports.
Impact:
- Affects firms involved in enforcement actions who may request time extensions.
- Provides clarity on the factors considered by the FCA.
- May lead to cost savings if firms decide not to request extensions.
- No obligation on firms to act on the information; no familiarisation costs expected.

2. Stage 1 Period Extensions

Amendment: EG clarifies that the FCA considers external factors impacting a firm's ability to engage in settlement negotiations during the stage 1 period.
Impact:
- Affects firms engaged in settlement discussions during the stage 1 period.
- No change in FCA's existing practice.
- May lead to cost savings if firms choose not to apply for extensions.
- Provides more effective decision-making for firms.

3. Streamlined Resolution Procedure

Amendment: Introduces a focused resolution agreement to narrow disputes and allows firms to waive the right to make representations to the RDC in order to proceed directly to the Upper Tribunal.
Impact:
- Provides firms with more flexibility in how they respond to enforcement actions.
- Encourages partial resolution, potentially reducing time and cost for both the FCA and the firm.
- No obligation for firms to use this procedure.
- May benefit firms planning to refer cases to the Tribunal by avoiding double contesting.

Business Impact Assessment

Affected Businesses

Type: Firms subject to disciplinary enforcement action by the FCA.
Estimated Number: Cannot be reliably estimated, but based on open cases during the 2015/2016 financial year:
- 226 open enforcement cases (excluding TCT cases) at 1 April 2015.
- 61 cases against firms (excluding 9 criminal/civil cases).
- 109 cases opened during 2015/2016, 41 against firms (5 criminal/civil cases).
- Maximum of 102 firms (excluding civil/criminal cases) affected during the year.

Cost and Benefit Analysis

Costs:
- Potential time and resource costs for firms that choose to contest part of the case.
- Firms may need to review and understand new procedures, though this is not expected to increase overall familiarisation costs.
Benefits:
- More effective decision-making for firms on whether to request time extensions.
- Potential cost savings if firms decide not to request extensions.
- Opportunity to contest parts of the case without losing the benefits of sanction discounts.
- Earlier referral to the Upper Tribunal, reducing the need for dual contesting.

Additional Information for BIT Score Validation

No data was collected from firms regarding potential costs or benefits of the changes.
It is not considered proportionate or practical to retrospectively gather such data.
The amendments do not impose new obligations on firms; they only clarify and provide additional options.