A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 7 March 2017
On 9 February 2017 the PRA issued its Final Notice in respect of its investigation against The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Limited ("BTMU") and MUFG Securities EMEA plc ("MUS(EMEA)") which imposed financial penalties of £17.85m against BTMU and a fine of £8.925m against MUS(EMEA) for failing to be open and co-operative with the PRA in relation to enforcement action into BTMU by the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS").
BTMU is an international bank headquartered in Tokyo, with over 850 branches worldwide, including one in London. It is a subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc, the "Parent Company" of a global banking network also headquartered in Tokyo. MUS(EMEA) is an UK-incorporated subsidiary of Mitsubishi UFJ Securities Holding, which itself is a subsidiary of the Parent Company. Both BTMU and MUS(EMEA) provide commercial banking, securities, consumer finances and other services and, as such, regulated by the PRA for prudential purposes and the FCA for conduct matters.
In November 2014 BTMU was fined $315m for pressuring its consultant to water down a supposedly objective report on BTMU’s dealings with sanctioned countries, submitted to DFS, thereby misleading regulators. The DFS enforcement action also had implications for the then Chair of MUS(EMEA).
The PRA found that BTMU’s systems, policies, procedures and controls for the communication of information relevant to the DFS enforcement action were inadequate. In consequence:
As a result, the PRA found that BTMU breached Fundamental Rules 6 and 7 of its Rulebook and that MUS(EMEA) breached Fundamental Rule 7. Fundamental Rule 6 requires firms to organise and control their affairs responsible and effectively, while Fundamental Rule 7 requires firms to deal with their regulators in an open and co-operative manner.
This is the first time that the PRA has taken enforcement action against a financial institution for breaches of Fundamental Rules 6 and 7, and it has not held back any punches. The level of fine could have been 30% higher, as this discount was agreed to take into account the firms' early settlement with the PRA. It also appears that little credit was given for the remedial action undertaken by BTMU and MUS(EMEA) since 2014 in order to develop and implement measures to enhance the sharing of information relating to regulatory investigations.
It is helpful that in the PRA's Final Notice they make clear what their expectations are of authorised firms, who are advised to take note of the following:
In summary, Sam Woods, Deputy Governor, Prudential Regulation and CEO of the PRA said that: "We expect all firms to be open and straightforward in their dealings with the PRA. Where firms fall short of this expectation, we will enforce it.” The PRA have certainly got this message across in this case.
London - Walbrook
+44 (0)20 7894 6290
Jonathan Brogden, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Jonathan Brogden, Laura Berry
Julian Bubb Humfryes
Laura Berry, Pippa Ellis
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis, Laura Berry, Julian Bubb Humfryes
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis, Laura Berry
Jonathan Brogden, Pippa Ellis