Entire Section

  • Step 2: The seriousness of the contravention

    • RPP 6-6-2

      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 the contravention;
      (b) factors relating to the nature of the contravention;
      (c) factors tending to show whether the contravention was deliberate; and
      (d) factors tending to show whether the contravention was reckless.
      Inserted (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-6-3

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

      (a) the level of benefit gained or loss avoided, or intended to be gained or avoided, by the individual 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.
      Inserted (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-6-4

      Factors relating to the nature of a contravention by an individual include:

      (a) the nature of the Laws or Rules contravened;
      (b) the frequency of the contravention;
      (c) the nature and extent of any financial crime facilitated, occasioned or otherwise attributable to the contravention;
      (d) the scope for any potential financial crime to be facilitated, occasioned or otherwise occur as a result of the contravention;
      (e) whether the individual failed to act with integrity;
      (f) whether the individual abused a position of trust;
      (g) whether the individual committed a contravention of any professional code of conduct;
      (h) whether the individual caused or encouraged other individuals to commit contraventions;
      (i) whether the individual held a prominent position within the industry;
      (j) whether the individual is an experienced industry professional;
      (k) whether the individual held a senior position with the firm;
      (l) the extent of the responsibility of the individual for the product or business areas affected by the contravention, and for the particular matter that was the subject of the contravention;
      (m) whether the individual acted under duress; and
      (n) whether the individual took any steps to comply with DFSA rules, and the adequacy of those steps.
      Inserted (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-6-5

      Factors tending to show the contravention was deliberate include:

      (a) the contravention was intentional, in that the individual intended, could reasonably have foreseen or foresaw that the likely or actual consequences of his actions or inaction would result in a contravention;
      (b) the individual intended to benefit financially from the contravention, either directly or indirectly;
      (c) the individual knew that his actions were not in accordance with his firm's internal procedures;
      (d) the individual sought to conceal his misconduct;
      (e) the individual committed the contravention in such a way as to avoid or reduce the risk that the contravention would be discovered;
      (f) the individual was influenced to commit the contravention by the belief that it would be difficult to detect;
      (g) the individual knowingly took decisions relating to the contravention beyond his field of competence; and
      (h) the individual's actions were repeated.
      Inserted (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition

    • RPP 6-6-6

      Factors tending to show the contravention was reckless include:

      (a) the individual appreciated there was a risk that his actions or inaction could result in a contravention and failed adequately to mitigate that risk; and
      (b) the individual was aware there was a risk that his actions or inaction could result in a contravention but failed to check if he was acting in accordance with internal procedures.
      Inserted (Made 21st August 2014). August 2014 Edition