<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 12:00:19 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>News</title><subtitle>News</subtitle><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/atom.xml"/><updated>2010-07-29T01:24:51Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Webb on exchanges in Hong Kong</title><category term="Hong Kong"/><category term="david webb"/><category term="hkex"/><category term="hong kong exchange"/><category term="ronald arculli"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/29/webb-on-exchanges-in-hong-kong.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/29/webb-on-exchanges-in-hong-kong.html"/><author><name>Alex Duperouzel</name></author><published>2010-07-29T01:21:29Z</published><updated>2010-07-29T01:21:29Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>We do not always agree with David Webb, an financial policy activist in Hong Kong, but he makes some very interesting points in his current article on the monopoly that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange enjoys in Hong Kong.&nbsp; <a href="http://webb-site.com/articles/hkexopoly.asp">See here</a> for details.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Mr Mok Kee Tong short selling fine</title><category term="Hong Kong enforcement"/><category term="Hong kong enforcement"/><category term="hong kong short selling"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/14/mr-mok-kee-tong-short-selling-fine.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/14/mr-mok-kee-tong-short-selling-fine.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-07-14T10:50:31Z</published><updated>2010-07-14T10:50:31Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>On 8 July the FSC reported that Mr Mok Kee Tong, a licensed representative of Lehin Securities Limited, had been fined $54,000 after pleading guilty to 18 charges of illegally short selling. Mok was also instructed to pay the SFC investigation costs.</p>
<p>The SFC&rsquo;s reported that its investigation found that between 3 September 2009 and 11 December 2009, Mok conducted intraday short selling involving 14 stocks traded on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited when he did not have a presently exercisable and unconditional right to sell them and did not believe or have reasonable grounds to believe that he had such right (thus constituting illegal short selling). Mok made a profit on each of the short selling occasions.</p>
<p>For further information please see <a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=10PR78">Short Selling Fine</a></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>SFC bans and fines Ricky Kwan Po Kit</title><category term="Hong Kong enforcement"/><category term="Hong kong enforcement"/><category term="trading"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/14/sfc-bans-and-fines-ricky-kwan-po-kit.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/14/sfc-bans-and-fines-ricky-kwan-po-kit.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-07-14T10:33:34Z</published><updated>2010-07-14T10:33:34Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: black;">On 5 July the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) reported that it had banned Mr Ricky Kwan Po Kit, from re-entering the industry for five years from 2 July 2010 to 1 July 2015 and fined him $228,000. <br /><br />The SFC found that Kwan operated a secret account in his brother-in-law&rsquo;s name without proper disclosure to his employer, with some transactions generating a profit. In doing so, he placed himself in a position of serious conflict in breach of the General Principle 6 (conflicts of interest) of the Code of Conduct. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">For further information please see <a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=10PR77">Kwan Banned</a></span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>SFC applies takeover-and-merger framework to REITs</title><category term="Hong Kong"/><category term="REIT"/><category term="hong kong sfc"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/5/sfc-applies-takeover-and-merger-framework-to-reits.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/7/5/sfc-applies-takeover-and-merger-framework-to-reits.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-07-04T16:03:54Z</published><updated>2010-07-04T16:03:54Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: black;">On 25 June The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) released to press releases in relation to <a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=10PR69">the application of the Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Repurchases (Codes) to SFC-authorised real estate investment trusts (REITs)</a>. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">The conclusions from the consultation process undertaken in January were also released on 25 June. <a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfc/doc/EN/speeches/public/consult/REIT_Consultation_Conclusions_Jun2010.pdf">Consultation Conclusions</a> </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Mr Martin Wheatley, the SFC's Chief Executive Officer, said "We believe that the implementation of the proposals represent a significant step forward in establishing a regulatory framework that better protects the investors&rsquo; interests and assists the further development of the REIT market in Hong Kong" </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">The proposed amendments to the Code on REITs (REIT Code) and the Codes include aligning the control structure of REITs with that of listed companies and introducing a set of REIT Guidance Notes. The amendments took effect from Friday, 25 June 2010. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">The second release was in relation to amendments to the Codes in relation to pre-vetting of certain takeovers-related matters. </span>The SFC announced that certain routine takeovers-related announcements will no longer be required to be submitted to the Executive (Note 1) for comment prior to publication. <br /><br /></p>
<p>For further information please see <a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=10PR70">Post-Vetting Requirement</a></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>MAS issues Tenets of Effective Regulation</title><category term="Singapore"/><category term="Singapore MAS"/><category term="regulation"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/10/mas-issues-tenets-of-effective-regulation.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/10/mas-issues-tenets-of-effective-regulation.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-06-10T02:35:45Z</published><updated>2010-06-10T02:35:45Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #303b48;">On 8 June 2010, The MAS issued a monograph &ldquo;Tenets of Effective Regulation&rdquo;. The guide lays out out how MAS designs and formulates regulation, and explains its regulatory approach. The six Tenets are:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #303b48;">Tenet 1: Outcome Focused<br />Tenet 2: Shared Responsibility<br />Tenet 3: Risk Appropriate<br />Tenet 4: Responsive to Change and Cycles<br />Tenet 5: Impact Sensitive<br />Tenet 6: Clear and Consistent</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #303b48;">Teo Swee Lian, Deputy Managing Director, MAS, said, &ldquo;Success in achieving effective regulation requires more than MAS setting demanding standards of itself. Industry has a critical role to play by taking shared responsibility for and ownership of the regulatory objectives, as well as instituting high standards of governance and controls for itself.&nbsp; Articulating this set of Tenets is a further step towards fostering shared understanding and ownership of our regulatory approach and objectives.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: #303b48;">The monograph on "<a href="http://www.mas.gov.sg/resource/publications/monographs/MAS-Monograph_Tenets_of_Effective_Regulation.pdf" target="_blank">Tenets of Effective Regulation</a>" is available on MAS&rsquo; website.</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>One more thing before I go</title><category term="OTC regulation"/><category term="US financial reforms"/><category term="USA Financial Reforms"/><category term="chris dodd"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/9/one-more-thing-before-i-go.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/9/one-more-thing-before-i-go.html"/><author><name>Alex Duperouzel</name></author><published>2010-06-09T03:21:56Z</published><updated>2010-06-09T03:21:56Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>As most followers of the US political system know, long time Democratic Senator Chris Dodd is soon retiring.&nbsp; A major legacy for the financial industry will be the passage of a large number of financial reforms that we have been covering in this blog since President Obama was elected.</p>
<p>Leading US law firm, <a href="http://www.klgates.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?publication=6461">K&amp;L Gates, has posted a very good summary </a>of the current status of the Dodd Bill, the House Bill that was similar and the conference proceedings which begin any day now.</p>
<p>In short the Obama Financial Reforms should be signed into law by early July.</p>
<p>The reforms will bring a lot of change in areas like bank regulation, OTC derivatives, US registration of hedge funds and other private pools of capital, credit agencies and the sale of financial products to consumers.&nbsp; Each change is actually quite significant and as a group they certainly are the biggest changes to US financial services since the 1930's.</p>
<p>With such considerable change and new rules across multiple types of business models it is all going to take a while to digest.&nbsp; Indeed as K&amp;L Gates point out, you should expect further legislative amendments and clarifications to as the provisions begin to be tried in real life.</p>
<p>A few wags referred to the Sarbanes Oxley legislation as the Accounting and Audit Remuneration Act and the Dodd Bill is certainly the Legal and Compliance Providers Remuneration Act of 2010.</p>
<p>We expect to see a decent volume of work in 2011 arising from the requirement for overseas managers of hedge funds to be registered with the US SEC and to remain compliant with it rules and directives.&nbsp;</p>
<p>We also expect broad international acceptance of many of the US banking, OTC, consumer protection and credit reference agency changes to result in corresponding changes at the local level in the major Asian jurisdictions of Japan, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore.&nbsp; Hong Kong recently announced it is issuing new guideance for credit reference agencies and it has been quite active over the last 12 months in the area of rule changes for firms selling financial products to the public.&nbsp; Singapore has of course made similar progess in the area of the sale of financial products and it is expected to soon require all previously exempt asset managers to be licensed by the MAS.</p>
<p>The costs of new provisions across multiple jurisdictions will be high.&nbsp; This against a backdrop of sub-optimal economic growth in the US and Europe and challenging markets for asset managers and intermediaries in the Asian region.&nbsp; It is fair to say that this is likely to mean that the industry will be smaller overall.&nbsp; The larger players will find a way to meet the new requirements - even if it means splitting off parts of their business - while the ones who have been marginal to this point simply won't have the capital to go on.&nbsp; Mr Dodd may not be the only one retiring soon.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>Malaysia SC amends Guidelines on Unit Trust Funds</title><category term="SC Malaysia"/><category term="Unit Trust Funds"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/3/malaysia-sc-amends-guidelines-on-unit-trust-funds.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/3/malaysia-sc-amends-guidelines-on-unit-trust-funds.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-06-03T02:08:25Z</published><updated>2010-06-03T02:08:25Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: #333333;">On June 1, 2010, the Securities Commission Malaysia (SC) announced that it had amended the Guidelines on Unit Trust Funds (GUTF) to facilitate a multi-class structure for unit trust funds. The amendments allow for a single unit trust fund to offer multiple classes of units over a single investment pool, with each class of units having different features such as the fees and charges imposed and the currency in which it is denominated. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: #333333;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #333333;">As such, investors will be able to choose the class that best suit their preferences and investment objectives enabling better matching of the investment preferences for different investor groups.</span><span style="color: #333333;">&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #333333;">For more information please see <a href="http://www.sc.com.my/main.asp?pageid=379&amp;linkid=2612&amp;yearno=2010&amp;mod=paper">SC amendments to GUTF</a></span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>SFC fine UBS employees</title><category term="Hong Kong enforcement"/><category term="Hong kong enforcement"/><category term="UBS"/><category term="morgan stanley"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/2/sfc-fine-ubs-employees.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/6/2/sfc-fine-ubs-employees.html"/><author><name>Alex Duperouzel</name></author><published>2010-06-02T07:50:39Z</published><updated>2010-06-02T07:50:39Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Continuing a very busy couple of weeks of fines and enforcement reporting the Hong Kong SFC today announced that it was fining three UBS employees in connection with an issue that was previously covered in this blog involving wash trades and a client of Morgan Stanley.</p>
<p>The SFC reported as follows:</p>
<p><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Securities and Futures Commission  (SFC) has publicly reprimanded Mr Frank Hu, Ms Peony Ng and Ms Jenny  Chang Pui Chun of UBS AG Hong Kong (UBS) and fined them $800,000,  $600,000 and $400,000 respectively, for negligence in handling a  client&rsquo;s trade orders (Note 1)</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">An SFC investigation found that Hu, Ng, and Chang, were  negligent in relation to a series of trades that they carried out on  behalf of one of their clients at UBS which constituted wash sales and  may have misled the market (Note 2). </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">Both  Hu and Ng are executive directors at UBS and Chang is an associate  director.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">In February 2008, the client,  who was facing margin calls from UBS decided to transfer part of his  portfolio at UBS (Note 3) to his account at Morgan Stanley Asia Ltd  (Morgan Stanley) in order to ease his margin position with UBS. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">This could have been achieved through a simple delivery  versus payment arrangement, such as by using the Central Clearing and  Settlement System. Instead, a series of on-exchange matched sales and  purchases (Note 4) was coordinated among Hu, Ng and Chang at UBS and the  client&rsquo;s account executive and her assistants at Morgan Stanley (Note  5) between 28 February and 26 March 2008. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">In deciding the penalty for Hu, Ng and Chang, the SFC took  into account that the three individuals had not carried out the matched  trades with manipulative intent to interfere with the market, that they  had sought internal compliance advice at UBS but failed to follow the  advice due to misunderstanding, that they had co-operated with the SFC,  and that each of them has a clean disciplinary record.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">End</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">Notes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">1.	Hu, Ng and Chang are relevant individuals registered  with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Hu and Chang are authorized to  carry out Type 1 (dealing in securities) and Type 4 (advising on  securities) regulated activities whilst Ng is authorized to carry out  Type 1 regulated activities. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">2.	Wash sales  are transactions that do not involve any change in beneficial  ownership. In this case, the sell orders of UBS and the buy orders of  Morgan Stanley were matched on 82 occasions where there was no change in  beneficial ownership of the shares involved.</span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">3.	The securities involved in the transfer were Fosun  International Ltd (stock code 656), Tiangong International Company Ltd  (stock code 826), Centron Telecom International Holding Ltd (stock code  1155), and Kingsoft Corporation Ltd (stock code 3888). </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">4.	Upon receiving the client&rsquo;s instructions, Chang would  input sell orders on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. She would then  inform the account executives handling the client&rsquo;s account at Morgan  Stanley by telephone immediately of the volume and price of the orders  who would then arrange for Morgan Stanley, on behalf of the client, to  purchase from the market similar quantity of the same stock at the same  prices or at prices lower than UBS&rsquo; sell orders. </span><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">5.	The SFC has also taken disciplinary action against the  account executive at Morgan Stanley (See SFC </span><a href="http://www.sfc.hk/sfcPressRelease/EN/sfcOpenDocServlet?docno=09PR113"><span style="font-family: Arial;">press release</span></a></em><span style="font-family: Arial;"> dated 17  August 2009). </span></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>SFC fine Merrill Lynch</title><category term="Hong Kong enforcement"/><category term="Hong kong enforcement"/><category term="merrill lynch"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/5/31/sfc-fine-merrill-lynch.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/5/31/sfc-fine-merrill-lynch.html"/><author><name>Alex Duperouzel</name></author><published>2010-05-31T08:36:13Z</published><updated>2010-05-31T08:36:13Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">According to the SFC website, the Hong Kong SFC has fined two Merrill Lynch entities at total of HK$3.5m (about US450k) for internal control breaches.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Arial;">Here is the report:</span></p>
<p><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Securities and  Futures Commission (SFC) has fined Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited  and Merrill Lynch Futures (Hong Kong) Limited (collectively Merrill  Lynch) (Note 1) $3,500,000 for systems and controls failings associated  with the mis-marking activities in a trading book.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">The SFC&rsquo;s investigation found that during the period from  December 2007 to October 2008, a managing director of Merrill Lynch had  mis-marked a trading book in exotics options (Book) by manipulating the  volatility marks in the valuation model, and accessed the computer  system without authority to alter pricing parameters on various  occasions. The mis-marking activities, which did not apply to any other  books, resulted in the value of the Book being inflated by approximately  US$25 million and caused the actual loss in the Book to be wrongly  reported internally.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">The SFC found that  Merrill Lynch did not have adequate internal controls procedures in  place to manage the risks associated with mis-marking, in that:</span><br /></em></p>
<ul>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">there was uncertainty as to supervisory  responsibilities over the trader and the Book;</span></em></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">the price verification mechanism applied  to other trading books was not applied to the Book;</span></em></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">there were inadequate checks and balances  over the Book to mitigate operation risks including risks associated  with fraud and dishonest activities;</span></em></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">there was insufficient safeguard over information security  and integrity as regards the Book;</span></em></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">trading and valuation policies were not sufficiently  implemented over the Book; and</span></em></li>
<li><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">senior management failed to adequately manage the risks  associated with the Book.</span></em></li>
</ul>
<p><em><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">&ldquo;Licensed  corporations must have effective procedures in place to manage risks of  trading books. For books that deal in illiquid assets which have low  price transparency, more robust measures must be in place. The proper  implementation of an effective risk management framework could have  enabled Merrill Lynch to detect the mis-marking earlier,&rdquo; said Mr Mark  Steward, the SFC&rsquo;s Executive Director of Enforcement.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">Merrill Lynch accepts that its systems and controls fell  short of those expected in respect of the Book. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">The SFC accepts that Merrill Lynch&rsquo;s misconduct was not  intentional and Merrill Lynch has taken remedial steps to address the  compliance weaknesses. In deciding on the sanctions, the SFC took into  account Merrill Lynch&rsquo;s co-operation in resolving the case.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">End</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">Notes:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: Arial;">1.	Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited is licensed under  the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) to carry on Type 1 (dealing  in securities), Type 4 (advising on securities), Type 6 (advising on  corporate finance) and Type 7 (providing automated trading services)  regulated activities. Merrill Lynch Futures (Hong Kong) Limited is  licensed to carry on Type 2 (dealing in futures contracts) regulated  activity under the SFO.</span></em>﻿</p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>MAS issues consultation paper on Code of Collective Investment Schemes</title><category term="Code Collective Investment Schemes"/><category term="MAS Consultation Paper"/><category term="Singapore"/><category term="Singapore MAS"/><id>http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/5/25/mas-issues-consultation-paper-on-code-of-collective-investme.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.compliance.asia/journal/2010/5/25/mas-issues-consultation-paper-on-code-of-collective-investme.html"/><author><name>Kathryn Mathers</name></author><published>2010-05-24T22:20:28Z</published><updated>2010-05-24T22:20:28Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>On May 17, the MAS issued a consultation paper on the Code of Collective Investment Schemes. The paper focuses on investment guidelines and on ensuring that the regulatory regime for CIS keeps pace with product innovation and industry developments, as well as regulatory developments in major fund jurisdictions.</p>
<p>The proposed amendments include:</p>
<ol>
<li>Introducing a list of permissible investments and accompanying criteria to enhance clarity in the application of the liquidity and diversification limits</li>
<li>Strengthening safeguards on the use of financial derivatives through prescription of counterparty limits and acceptable forms of collateral used to mitigate counterparty risks.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Introducing additional guidelines on the use of the commitment approach and Value-at-Risk (VaR) method.</li>
<li>Enhancing existing guidelines on funds&rsquo; securities lending activities through comprehensive requirements on the counterparty, custodian and the use of collateral.</li>
<li>Establishing new investment guidelines for funds seeking to track indices, introducing principles for the naming of funds and requirements to standardise the methods used for calculating performance fees.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Modifying existing operational requirements, including allowing the sending of accounts and annual reports to unitholders by electronic means.</li>
</ol>
<p>Comments are due to MAS by 25 June 2010.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>For further information please use the following link<span style="color: #303b48;"> <a href="http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/press_releases/2010/MAS_Consults_on_Proposed_Amendments_to_the_Code_on_CIS.html">CIS Consultation Paper</a></span></p>]]></content></entry></feed>