Добавил:
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ryder N., Griffiths M., Singh L. Commercial law - principles and policy 2012.pdf
Скачиваний:
24
Добавлен:
19.12.2022
Размер:
3.27 Mб
Скачать

457

8â Banking Conduct Regime

 

 

 

overrode the duty of banker-customer confidentiality’.152 The third exception,

 

the interests of the bank, could apply where a bank sues its customer for debt.

 

Ellinger et al. took the view that ‘this qualification will most obviously cover the

 

situation where a bank commences proceedings against its customer to recover

 

an unpaid loan or overdraft facility and the bank has to disclose in the plead-

 

ings the extent of the customer’s liabilities.153 The final exception is where the

 

customer authorised the bank to disclose certain information. It has, however,

 

also been suggested that a further very important restriction on a bank’s duty of

 

confidentiality arises in relation to reporting allegations of money laundering.

 

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Money Laundering Regulations

 

2007, a banker is required to report any suspicious activity to the bank’s money

 

laundering reporting officer (MLRO), who will then file a suspicious activity

 

report with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Failure to comply with these

 

reporting obligations could result, if convicted, in a custodial sentence and/or

 

the imposition of a financial penalty by the FSA. However, it has been argued

 

that the money laundering reporting provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act

 

2002 are ‘vulnerable to attack through the Human Rights Act 1998 and in par-

 

ticular, through Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’.154

 

Q3 What is the significance of the decision in Tournier v. National Provincial

 

Union Bank of England?

8â Banking Conduct Regime

In November 2009, the Banking Conduct Regime, which covers the regulated activity of accepting deposits, supplanted the similar provisions of the selfregulatory Banking Code and Business Banking Code. It was argued in Part 6 Chapter 1 that self-regulation is an unsatisfactory means of managing the activities of banks in the United Kingdom, although several commentators have pointed out that self-regulation does contain a number of benefits.155 The FSA identified several problem areas in the previous Banking Codes, which included:

(a) the lack of an equivalent to the FSA’s requirement in Principle 6;

(b) weaknesses in the Banking Code and Business Banking Code’s disciplinary powers;

(c) the implementation in November 2009 of the Payment Services Directive, which applies to the majority of retail banks and replaced large parts of the existing Codes.156

152 [1998] 4 All ER 455.

153 Ellinger et al., above n. 10, at 191. 154 Stokes, above n. 136, at 508.

155 See, e.g., the excellent commentary by Cartwright, above n. 50, at 303–6.

156 P. Richards-Carpenter, E. Sautter, A. Hayes, N. Kynoch, P. Stark, M. Baker, S. Dehra, S. Rosser, V. Plange, and M. Ali, ‘Annual Review for 2008’ (2008) 62 Compliance Officer Bulletin (December/ January) 1, 18.

458

Banking and finance law

 

 

 

 

 

The Banking Conduct Regime consists of three very important parts: the

 

full application of the FSA’s Principles for Businesses; the conduct of business

 

requirements of the Payment Services Regulations 2009, SI 2009/209; and the

 

Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook.

 

(a)â Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook

 

The Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook applies to all firms that accept

 

deposits from banking customers and those who provide current and savings

 

accounts. The FSA published a consultation paper in 2008 that outlined its

 

proposed structure as to how banks should treat their customers.157 Richards-

 

Carpenter et al., stated:

 

 

These proposals follow the speech made in July 2007 by John Tiner, the former

 

 

chief executive of FSA, at a meeting of the High Level City Group in which he

 

 

indicated that, among other things, FSA should bring the conduct of deposit-

 

 

taking business solely under its ‘umbrella’. The reasoning being that this would

 

 

eliminate the ‘regulatory gaps’ that existed.158

 

 

Cartwright noted that the Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook:

 

 

is concerned, therefore, with conduct of business requirements in areas of

 

 

retail banking that are not circumscribed by the Directive. The FSA uses the

 

 

language of ‘retail banking services’ to encapsulate the activities covered by

 

 

[the Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook] BCOBS. This covers many

 

 

of the services which are not dictated by the Regulations, but which involve

 

 

retail banking, such as accepting deposits and providing related services such

 

 

as foreign exchange. Some areas are currently covered by COBS and would

 

 

largely be carried forward. In other areas, BCOBS will introduce new high-

 

 

level rules. Many of these issues were previously incorporated into the Banking

 

 

Code, and one area of concern has been whether protection would be lost in a

 

 

move to BCOBS. BCOBS is intended to apply to UK branches of credit institu-

 

 

tions authorised in other European Economic Area states, credit unions and

 

 

e-money issuers.159

 

 

The Banking Conduct of Business Sourcebook contains rules and guidance

 

on a wide range of activities including:

 

communications with banking customers and financial promotions;

 

distance communications, including the requirements of the Distance

 

 

Marketing Directive 2002/65/EC and E-commerce Directive 2000/31/EC;

 

information to be communicated to banking customers, including appropri-

 

 

ate information and statements of account;

 

157

Financial Services Authority Consultation Paper 08/19, Regulating Retail Banking Conduct of

 

 

Business (London, 2008) and its response to the views received in 2009, FSA, Policy Statement

 

 

regulating retail banking conduct of business, feedback on CP08/19 and final rules.

 

158

Richards et al., above n. 156.

 

159

Cartwright, above n. 50, at 302–3.