Entire Section

  • Step 2: The seriousness of the contravention

    • RPP 6-5-2

      The DFSA will determine a financial penalty figure that reflects the seriousness of the contravention. In determining such a figure, the DFSA will take into account various factors, which will usually fall into the following four categories:

      (a) factors relating to the impact of a contravention;
      (b) factors relating to the nature of a contravention;
      (c) factors tending to show whether a contravention was deliberate; and
      (d) factors tending to show whether a contravention was reckless.
      Derived from Notice of Updates (Made 20th December 2012). December 2012 Edition
      Amended (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-5-3

      Factors relating to the impact of a contravention committed by a firm include:

      (a) the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the firm from the contravention, either directly or indirectly;
      (b) the loss or risk of loss, as a whole, caused to consumers, investors or other market users in general;
      (c) the loss or risk of loss caused to individual consumers, investors or other market users;
      (d) whether the contravention had an effect on particularly vulnerable people, whether intentionally or otherwise;
      (e) the inconvenience or distress caused to consumers; and
      (f) whether the contravention had an adverse effect on markets and, if so, how serious that effect was. This may include having regard to whether the orderliness of, or confidence in, the markets in question has been damaged or put at risk.
      Derived from Notice of Updates (Made 20th December 2012). December 2012 Edition
      Amended by Notice of Updates (Made 14th July 2013). July 2013 Edition
      Amended (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-5-4

      Factors relating to the nature of a contravention by a firm include:

      (a) the nature of the Laws or Rules contravened;
      (b) the frequency of the contravention;
      (c) whether the contravention revealed serious or systemic weaknesses in the firm's procedures or in the management systems or internal controls relating to all or part of the firm's business;
      (d) whether the firm's senior management were aware of the contravention;
      (e) the nature and extent of any financial crime facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the contravention;
      (f) the scope for any potential financial crime to be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur as a result of the contravention;
      (g) whether the firm failed to conduct its business with integrity; and
      (h) whether the firm, in committing the contravention, took any steps to comply with Laws and Rules, and the adequacy of those steps.
      Derived from Notice of Updates (Made 20th December 2012). December 2012 Edition
      Amended (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-5-5

      Factors tending to show the contravention was deliberate include:

      (a) the contravention was intentional, in that the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, intended, could reasonably have foreseen, or foresaw that the likely or actual consequences of their actions or inaction would result in a contravention;
      (b) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, knew that their actions were not in accordance with the firm's internal procedures;
      (c) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, sought to conceal their misconduct;
      (d) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, committed the contravention in such a way as to avoid or reduce the risk that the contravention would be discovered;
      (e) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, were influenced to commit the contravention by the belief that it would be difficult to detect; and
      (f) the contravention was repeated.
      Derived from Notice of Updates (Made 20th December 2012). December 2012 Edition
      Amended (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-5-6

      Factors tending to show the contravention was reckless include:

      (a) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, appreciated that there was a risk that their actions or inaction could result in a contravention and failed adequately to mitigate that risk; and
      (b) the firm's senior management, or a responsible individual, were aware that there was a risk that their actions or inaction could result in a contravention but failed to check if they were acting in accordance with the firm's internal procedures.
      Derived from Notice of Updates (Made 20th December 2012). December 2012 Edition
      Amended (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition