PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Central Bank considered the following matters: • The Firm took appropriate action to rectify the breach once made aware of it and now has satisfactory professional indemnity insurance in place; • The previous compliance record of the Firm; and • The fact that the firm settled at an early stage in the Administrative Sanctions Procedure. The Central Bank confirms its investigation into the Firm in respect of this matter is now closed.
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: The seriousness with which the conduct is viewed, particularly given BOI’s central role in the financial services system and the high risk nature of retail banking business in terms of ML/TF. The extended period of time over which the breaches occurred, spanning the period from 15 July 2010 to 18 December 2015. The co-operation of BOI during the investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanctions Procedure. The actions taken by BOI to remediate the breaches. The Central Bank confirms its investigation into BOI in respect of this matter is closed. NOTES TO EDITORS The fine reflects the application of the maximum percentage settlement discount of 30%, as per the Early Discount Scheme set out in the Central Bank’s ‘Outline of the Administrative Sanctions Procedure’ which is here.
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: The seriousness with which the conduct is viewed, particularly in circumstances where adherence to the Fitness and Probity regime is vital to ensuring that suitable individuals work in regulated entities. The period of time over which the breach occurred. The need to impose an effective and dissuasive sanction on regulated entities. The fact that Merrion took prompt and comprehensive steps to rectify the breach. The co-operation of Merrion during the Central Bank’s investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Administrative Sanctions Procedure.
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Central Bank took the following into account: The Firm now has a satisfactory PII policy in place providing cover in respect of all insurance mediation business written since the date of the Firm’s registration by the Central Bank under the IMR; The fact that the Firm failed to settle this matter at an early stage in the Administrative Sanctions Procedure and prior to the issuance of a Notice of Inquiry which resulted in no discount for early settlement being applied by the Central Bank; The fact that the contravention was denied by the Firm; and The lack of co-operation by the Firm with the Central Bank during the course of the investigation. The Central Bank confirms that the matter is now closed and that an Inquiry into this matter will not now take place. -End-
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: • The serious and widespread nature of the conduct relating to the failure to implement a number of key requirements of the CJA 2010. • The extended period of time over which all of the breaches (save for one) occurred, spanning the period from 15 July 2010 to 25 February 2016 (5 years and 7 months). • The fact that the monetary penalty will be payable from Xxxx Credit Union’s reserves. • The co-operation of Xxxx Credit Union during the investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanctions Procedure. • The actions taken by Xxxx Credit Union to remediate the breaches. The Central Bank confirms that its investigation into Xxxx Credit Union in respect of this matter is now closed. NOTES TO EDITOR
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. This case and the sanctions imposed reflect the importance to the Central Bank of firms having adequate administrative and accounting procedures and internal control mechanisms in place to ensure the production of accurate prudential regulatory returns. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Central Bank has taken the following into account:
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. This case and the sanctions imposed reflect the importance to the Central Bank of compliance with the client asset requirements which are now contained in the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act, 2013 (Section 48(1) (Investment Firms) Regulations 2017, particularly the principle of certainty of ownership of client assets. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: • The seriousness of the breaches – the client assets at issue were not protected in the way required by the CAR in terms of certainty of ownership, which could have led to delay in the return of those assets to the clients in the event of the Firm’s insolvency; • The extended period of time over which the breaches persisted (almost 6 years); • The need to have an appropriate deterrent impact; and • The co-operation of the Firm during the investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanction Procedure. The Central Bank confirms its investigation into the Firm in respect of this matter is closed. NOTES TO EDITORS
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: • The seriousness of the breaches – investor protection failings; • The Firm’s conduct in altering two already signed client declarations without the clients’ consent; • The contraventions revealed material weaknesses in the Firm’s internal controls in the conduct of its business relating to client take-on and client categorisation; • The extended period of time over which the breaches occurred; • The Firm initially did not take adequate remediation steps, necessitating further engagement from the Central Bank before full remediation was completed; • The co-operation of the Firm during the investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanction Procedure; and • Action taken by the Central Bank in previous similar cases. The Central Bank confirms its investigation into the Firm in respect of this matter is closed.
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. The penalties imposed in this case reflect the importance the Central Bank places on the provision of information about products to consumers and the requirement to employ adequate systems and controls to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, including the provisions of the 2012 Code. In deciding the appropriate penalty to impose, the Central Bank considered the following matters: • The impact of the Firm’s failures on consumers; • The total number of consumers impacted by the Firm’s failures; • The extended period of time over which the breaches occurred; • The number of incomplete statements issued to consumers; • The prompt action taken by the Firm to take steps to rectify the breaches once made aware of them; • The good previous compliance record of the Firm; • The co-operation of the Firm during the investigation and in settling at an early stage in the Central Bank’s Administrative Sanction Procedure; and • The need to have an appropriate deterrent impact. The Central Bank confirms its investigation into the Firm in respect of this matter is closed.
PENALTY DECISION FACTORS. In deciding the appropriate penalty, the Central Bank took the following into account:
