The Lemon Fool

dspp wrote:https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G2418.html

From a purely legal point of view I can't see that the OP's partner is caught by the rules.

The people covered are defined within the definition of a `personal transaction' (from the posted link):

personal transaction

a trade in a designated investment effected by or on behalf of a relevant person, where at least one of the following criteria are met:

(1) that relevant person is acting outside the scope of the activities he carried out in that capacity;
(2) the trade is carried out for the account of any of the following persons:
(a) the relevant person;
(b) the spouse or civil partner of the relevant person or any partner of that person considered by national law as equivalent to a spouse;
(c) a dependent child or stepchild of the relevant person;
(d) any other relative of the relevant person who has shared the same household as that person for at least one year on the date of the personal transaction concerned;
(e) any person with whom he has close links;
(f) a person whose relationship with the relevant person is such that the relevant person has a direct or indirect material interest in the outcome of the trade, other than a fee or commission for the execution of the trade.

She can't come within (2)(b) as she is not considered by English law to be the equivalent of a spouse.

She can't come within (2)(d) as she is not a relative.

On the face of it, I thought she might be included within (2)(e) but the definition of "close links" is only to do with ownership of a company.

And I don't see how she would come within 2(f) if the OP and his partner don't pool their finances.

However, as has been pointed out, she's not really in a position to argue the toss, and from a practical point of view she - and the OP - will probably just have to comply, no matter how irritating, or even unlawful the demand may be.

Clitheroekid wrote:

dspp wrote:https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G2418.html

From a purely legal point of view I can't see that the OP's partner is caught by the rules.

The people covered are defined within the definition of a `personal transaction' (from the posted link):
.....

However, as has been pointed out, she's not really in a position to argue the toss, and from a practical point of view she - and the OP - will probably just have to comply, no matter how irritating, or even unlawful the demand may be.

CK,

I think the relevant text from the link I gave is,

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handboo ... G2418.html

"(2) the trade is carried out for the account of any of the following persons:
(a) the relevant person;
(b) the spouse or civil partner of the relevant person or any partner of that person considered by national law as equivalent to a spouse;"

But in any case I think we agree that in practical terms compliance is pretty much the only option for the GF, and by extension the BF.

regards, dspp

@dspp - I think you are misunderstanding the term 'civil partner'. This is a legal relationship status equivalent/very similar to marriage, which was brought in for same sex couples in the 2000s. The law has now moved on and same sex couples can now marry, or they can still choose the civil partnership route. There was a legal case brought to enable different sex couples to become civil partners but I can't remember whether it was successful. Anyway the point is that civil partnerships need to be legally registered, and they are nothing to do with partners who live together without any legal status to their relationship, as is the case here.

@clitheroekid - I would query whether a shared mortgage means that a couple are 'financially separate'? And presumably, employment contracts can go further than the regulatory definition. I have to say, if the purpose is to ensure that there is no gain from inside information, then a live in partner in a jointly owned property would seem to fit at least the spirit of the definition of 'financially connected', even if not the letter of the law.

Chrysalis wrote:@dspp - I think you are misunderstanding the term 'civil partner'. This is a legal relationship status equivalent/very similar to marriage, which was brought in for same sex couples in the 2000s. The law has now moved on and same sex couples can now marry, or they can still choose the civil partnership route. There was a legal case brought to enable different sex couples to become civil partners but I can't remember whether it was successful. Anyway the point is that civil partnerships need to be legally registered, and they are nothing to do with partners who live together without any legal status to their relationship, as is the case here.

@clitheroekid - I would query whether a shared mortgage means that a couple are 'financially separate'? And presumably, employment contracts can go further than the regulatory definition. I have to say, if the purpose is to ensure that there is no gain from inside information, then a live in partner in a jointly owned property would seem to fit at least the spirit of the definition of 'financially connected', even if not the letter of the law.

I think the FCA is using the term 'civil partner' to describe a wider group of people than the narrow UK legal definition, and I think it is my interpretation that the OP's GF's employer's lawyers are preferring. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter and is in practical terms irrelevant.

regards, dspp

In all this technical discussion what I assume the rules are trying to stop is insider information being shared within a household, and if the rules were not there a wife, or civil partner or whoever could still be caught for insider trading just as if I were given a tip in a pub by an insider to a potential takeover.

It is assumed, and possibly with some substance, that someone with insider knowledge is more likely to tell his wife or a person he shares his household with than a stranger in the said pub and so they are trying to stop that before it starts. I think therefore that it is perfectly reasonable, even if the rules do not specifically cover it, for a full time partner to be caught by those rules. Maybe she could argue about it but as seems to be the case here, it might be more than her job is worth, and the poster should just comply in support of his girl friend. As dspp says, the legal definition is irrelevant in practice.

Dod

I'm not sure if the nuance of my earlier post (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19937&start=20#p258286) has been missed. The OP is mainly worried that his girlfriend will get sacked if he doesn't close his "broker accounts", because they're not on the employer's approved list of broker accounts.

He then goes on to name Vanguard, Freetrade and Crowdcube as the ones he needs to close. Now the last two I don't know anything about, but he does admit he uses those for playing around, so possibly no great loss if he had to stop.

But in the case of Vanguard, the account he's got is not a broker account. So you'd never expect it to appear on a list of brokers, and therefore it's unlikely that it's an issue of contention for the employer.

Obviously we can't be 100% sure without reading the employment contract or handbook or whatever, but definitely worth clarifying things.

Scott.

dspp wrote:
I think the FCA is using the term 'civil partner' to describe a wider group of people than the narrow UK legal definition
regards, dspp

I think that seems most unlikely, personally. But I agree that the employer may well be spreading the net to include live in partners, which to my mind, seems actually fair enough (although I can, sort of, understand the BF feeling annoyed).

Chrysalis wrote:

dspp wrote:
I think the FCA is using the term 'civil partner' to describe a wider group of people than the narrow UK legal definition
regards, dspp

I think that seems most unlikely, personally. But I agree that the employer may well be spreading the net to include live in partners, which to my mind, seems actually fair enough (although I can, sort of, understand the BF feeling annoyed).

Yes, as previously said a "civil partner" means a same sex partner, nothing more, nothing less. Thus any wider interpretation would be incorrect.

The only question that occurs to me is the subsequent reference to ".... or any partner of that person considered by national law as equivalent to a spouse", and whether that might include the OP.

richfool wrote:

Chrysalis wrote:

dspp wrote:
I think the FCA is using the term 'civil partner' to describe a wider group of people than the narrow UK legal definition
regards, dspp

I think that seems most unlikely, personally. But I agree that the employer may well be spreading the net to include live in partners, which to my mind, seems actually fair enough (although I can, sort of, understand the BF feeling annoyed).

Yes, as previously said a "civil partner" means a same sex partner, nothing more, nothing less. Thus any wider interpretation would be incorrect.

There is no way that an organisation like the FCA would ever use the term "civil partner" other than in its strict legal sense, which is somebody who has gone through a formal civil partnership procedure. These rules have been drafted by lawyers, and no lawyer would have the slightest doubt as to the very specific meaning of that term.

richfool wrote:The only question that occurs to me is the subsequent reference to ".... or any partner of that person considered by national law as equivalent to a spouse", and whether that might include the OP.

Again, this is black and white, and not open to debate. As I said before, a partner / cohabitee in the normal sense of the word is not considered by English law to be remotely equivalent to a spouse, so there is no possibility of her coming within that definition.

Clitheroekid wrote:There is no way that an organisation like the FCA would ever use the term "civil partner" other than in its strict legal sense, which is somebody who has gone through a formal civil partnership procedure. These rules have been drafted by lawyers, and no lawyer would have the slightest doubt as to the very specific meaning of that term.

I would second this - especially as the term "Civil Partnership" and how the term "Civil Partner" should be read are both explicitly defined for more general legal use by the Interpretation Act 1978 (as amended).

See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/schedule/1

Clitheroekid wrote:Again, this is black and white, and not open to debate. As I said before, a partner / cohabitee in the normal sense of the word is not considered by English law to be remotely equivalent to a spouse, so there is no possibility of her coming within that definition.

Might that not logically lead to
Darling, we need a divorce, so I can continue to trade freely without violating your new job's rules. Of course nothing will change in reality, we still share our house, bed, children, etc

Interesting practical example today of why companies who handle investing need to have compliance rules of this nature and apply them rigorously.

However junior or (in this case) senior you are, the rules apply. In this example, (where other rules were broken) one of the problems appears to be an investment in a company run by a Son in Law.

regards

Howard

Top fund manager forced to resign after BBC investigation

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50089887

Howard wrote:I

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50089887

Hmmm. which makes me think this is an area whereby some dispute could provide one party with a very direct method of stitching the other up.

eg said son-in-law and father-in-law may hate each other. Yet S-i-L coiuld in such circumstances deliberately brteak the rules that the F-i-L has to operate by and has no control over.

('Im not saying this was the case here!)

didds

didds wrote:eg said son-in-law and father-in-law may hate each other. Yet S-i-L coiuld in such circumstances deliberately brteak the rules that the F-i-L has to operate by and has no control over.
didds

Surely the issue in question here was investing managed funds in that company. Not any action of son-in-law in running the company?

One rule for the fund manager, another for the (then) Mayor of London investing in his floozy. But I guess that was only taxpayers' money, so it doesn't matter.