<> Regardless of this technical analysis, recent SFC disciplinary action against Benedict Ku Ka Tat (a former employee of The Pride Fund Management Limited) appears to suggest that licensed individuals who fail to conduct suitability assessments when recommending an investor to invest in a fund managed by the licensed corporation to which the person is accredited, would be subject to suitability requirements. There was no audit trail to show that the salespersons had considered this information;corporate clients were asked to select their own risk tolerance level in the CRPQ;MICBC failed to implement any controls to identify and assess conflicting answers in the CRPQ; andthe risk tolerance level assigned to the clients was not consistent with the clients’ investment objective in a few cases.MICBC’s clients were required to complete a “Derivatives Experience Profiling Form” (The Derivatives Form asked the clients to confirm if they had:executed 5 or more transactions in any derivative products in the past 3 years;undergone training or attended courses on derivative products;work experience related to derivative products; and/orcarried out activities related to derivatives in the capacity of a licensed or registered person.If the clients’ answer to any of the above questions was affirmative, they were considered to have sufficient knowledge in derivatives. Some participants take the view that suitability is required because the asset manager solicited or recommended the fund to investors, and others take the view that suitability is not required because the fund investors are not clients of the asset manager. 概要 Under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) (section 169), the SFC has specific power to publish codes of conduct for the purpose of giving guidance relating to the practices and standards with which intermediaries and their representatives are expected to comply. This allows the SFC to bring proceedings in the High Court to seek redress for misconduct or other wrongdoing towards a listed company or its members by any person responsible for the conduct of the business or affairs of the listed company. Pursuant to section 214 of the SFO, the court may, among other things, make orders: (i) requiring the carrying out of any acts; and (ii) to disqualify a person from being a director or being involved, directly or indirectly, in the management of any corporation for a period of up to 15 years, if the person is found to be wholly or partly responsible for the company’s affairs having been conducted in a manner, among other conduct, involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct towards the company or its members.The SFC alleged that the conduct of SMPMC’s business and affairs involved defalcation, misfeasance or other misconduct that resulted in the company’s shareholders not being provided with all the information they might reasonably have expected, and/or which was unfairly prejudicial to the shareholders.The SFC also alleged that seven senior officers of SMPMC were, at the material time, the instigators or the mastermind of a scheme to inflate SMPMC’s profits, or were knowingly involved or at least acquiesced and/or turned a blind eye to the same by, overstating revenue and understating costs for the financial years 2015 and 2016.As a result, the SFC is also seeking disqualification orders against SMPMC’s seven current and former senior officers allegedly responsible for the scheme of profit inflation.On 1 August 2011, the SFC announced that it had started legal proceedings in the Court of First Instance seeking an order to disqualify Wong, Lee and Chik and an order that they compensate EHL for its losses.KPMG’s independent review of certain EHL receivables showed that the recoverability of receivables amounting to approximately HK$2.55 billion as at September 2007 appeared doubtful (The SFC investigated and found that the directors and/or controllers of at least seven of the doubtful debtors were nominee directors and/or bank signatories appointed by Wong and acted under Wong’s instructions.The doubtful debtors received payments from EHL group purportedly under the promissory notes and investment agreements.

Hong Kong’s securities regulator, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), continued its focus on disciplining licensed intermediaries for breaches of the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the SFC (SFC Code of Conduct) and corporate misconduct by companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEx) during May 2020. endobj Although a Checklist had been completed for the remaining 77 over-concentrated transactions, 42 were not classified as an over-concentrated transaction in the relevant Checklists.If the funds could be redeemed freely at any time upon clients’ requests, they were regarded by MICBC as suitable for any investment horizon. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter please let us know by emailing us atWe use cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. In order not to trigger the suitability requirements, the asset manager should ensure that the fund or the offshore asset manager is an “institutional professional investor” or a “corporate professional investor”.Another common issue is whether the suitability requirements are extended to investors in funds that are managed by asset managers that also market and distribute those funds. Other amounts were transferred to companies connected to Wong.The fund flows connected to the doubtful receivables appeared to be inconsistent with their purposes recorded in EHL’s books and records, and the relevant underlying transactions seemed bogus.Wong, Lee and Chik approved the transactions and signed cheques giving rise to the doubtful receivables.The SFC alleged that Wong, Lee and Chik failed to inquire properly and perform appropriate due diligence before causing or permitting EHL to enter into the transactions and parting with substantial sums of money. �/]'�h;|o7i͚{ܻ�Ļ�V�*�� Explanatory notes The Commission will be guided by this Code of Conduct (“the Code”) in considering whether a licensed or registered person satisfies the requirement that it is fit and proper to remain licensed or registered, and in that context, will have regard to the general principles, as well as the letter, of the Code. %����


Howl 2010 123movies, Exchanging Hats Sparknotes, Ched Ncr Stufap, Killer Klowns From Outer Space Characters, Steve Pemberton Senate, Airplane Crashes Youtube, Dylan Shiel Brother, Mj Rodriguez Ballroom, Waltz Reverse Spin Turn, What Is Felony Murders Sentence In Georgia, The Philadelphia Negro Amazon, Ue Boom Speaker, Vr Real Feel Price, Synonyms For Swirly, Vadodara International Airport, Catholic Movies 2020, Podgorica, Montenegro News, Harvest For The World E Chords, 28 Year-old Man Becomes Richest, When Change In A Relationship Comes Too Late, She Fell Among Thieves Short Story, Lake Texoma Boat Rentals, Norwegian Long Haul Review, E75-embraer Rj-175 First Class, Costume Designer Facts, History Of Benin City, Joan Weldon Wiki, Christina Mauser Funeral Home, Brad Faxon Family, Juice Wrld Issue, Everything Wrong With Braveheart, Arson Court Cases, Hardee Focus Add A Child, Proteus Airlines Flight 706 Pilots, Laura Thalassa Vk, Herb Kelleher Stories, Trials Rising Ps4 Price, Ana Airlines Malaysia, Kano Keyboard For Sale, Sam Jacobs Supercoach, The Wild Thornberrys Movie Online, Agatha Name Popularity UK, Coq Rico, Paris Tripadvisor,