Employment in Financial Services

The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) is responsible for the authorisation and supervision of regulated financial service providers (RFSPs) in Ireland. RFSPs can include credit institutions, credit unions, brokers/retail intermediaries; and other RFSPs such as electronic money institutions, insurance and reinsurance undertakings, investment firms and payment institutions. The regulatory regime applies in a bespoke way to each sector and its employees and tailored legal advice should be taken for a specific situation. The general principles of the regulatory framework are set out below.

Fitness and Probity

The primary regulatory regime applicable to employees of RFSPs is the Fitness & Probity ("F&P") framework under the CBI Reform Act 2010 (2010 Act) as amended. Its function is to assess and monitor the suitability of individuals for certain key positions, known as Controlled Functions (CFs), including Pre-approved Controlled Functions (PCFs). The general rule is that an RFSP cannot permit a person to perform a controlled function unless the RFSP is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person complies with the F&P Standards prescribed under the 2010 Act and further set out in the regulations and Guidance prescribed by the CBI. A link to resources governing the F&P Standards is here.

Fitness relates to an individual's competency, experience, qualifications and capacity to perform the role (including time commitments and being free from conflicts of interest).

Probity relates to an individual's honesty, diligence, independence, ethics and integrity in performing their role.

Employers are required to perform due diligence to confirm that individuals they propose placing in CF roles are fit and proper. Employers are also required to hold a certificate of compliance in respect of each in scope employee, certifying that the employee complies with the F&P Standards. Employees of RFSPs must agree in writing to comply with the F&P Standards.

A breach of an individual's F&P obligations can result in criminal and administrative sanctions for the RFSP and suspension and disqualification for the individual from holding a controlled function.

Minimum Competency Requirements

The CBI also operates a minimum competency regime under the Minimum Competency Code 2017 and the CBI (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 (section 48(1)) Minimum Competency Regulations 2017, which set out professional standards and competencies, and continuing professional development (CPD) requirements, for persons providing certain financial services and products across certain sectors e.g., credit union and insurance services.  The aim is to protect consumers by ensuring a minimum acceptable level of competence from individuals acting for or on behalf of RFSPs providing advice and information and associated activities (such as dealing with insurance claims or complaints), in connection with in-scope financial products.

The Individual Accountability Framework

The CBI (Individual Accountability) Act 2023 (the "2023 Act") was signed into law on 9 March 2023. The 2023 Act introduced a new Individual Accountability Framework ("IAF"):

• An enhanced Fitness and Probity Framework;
• New Common Conduct Standards, including Additional Conduct Standards for PCFs, applicable to employees and officers of RFSPs as well as Business Conduct Standards;
• The Senior Executive Accountability Regime ("SEAR"); and
• Administrative Sanctions Procedures ("ASP") which empowers the CBI to investigate and sanction individuals for breaches of their obligations under the IAF including the Conduct Standards and their F&P obligations.

The IAF commenced in Ireland from 29 December 2023. The F&P Framework and the application of the new Conduct Standards became effective from this date. Other parts of the IAF will be effective later in 2024.

Conduct Standards

Under the 2010 Act, both CFs and PCFs must take any step that is reasonable in the circumstances in the performance of their role, to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Common Conduct Standards. The Common Conduct Standards are explained in Guidance published by the CBI here. The Conduct Standards include the requirement to act with honesty and integrity, due skill and care, co-operate in good faith with the CBI, act in the best interests of customers and comply with applicable rules governing market conduct and trading as applicable to the relevant RFSP's sector. The F&P Standards set a standard that CFs and PCFs must meet to ensure that they are sufficiently skilled and have the competence and capability to perform their roles. Whereas the Common Conduct Standards impose positive, enforceable legal obligations on individuals in those roles, governing their conduct and requiring them to act in accordance with a single set of standards of expected behaviour. Employers must train their employees on the applicable Conduct Standards. Employees are required to attend at that training and to fully understand and comply with the Conduct Standards. Additional Conduct Standards apply to PCFs.

Senior Executive Accountability Regime

SEAR which applies to senior managers/officers holding PCF and CF1 roles, will be applicable from 1 July 2024. SEAR will come into force in respect of Non Executive Directors (NEDs) and Independent Non Executive Directors (INEDs) with effect from 1 July 2025.

In terms of the scope of application, SEAR will be introduced on a phased basis and will initially apply from 1 July 2024 to credit institutions, insurance undertakings (excluding reinsurance undertakings, captive (re)insurance undertakings and insurance special purpose vehicles) and investment firms that underwrite on a firm commitment basis, deal on own account, or are authorised to hold client monies or assets; and third-country branches of the above.

However, the CBI has noted in its Consultation Paper 153 (CP153) that "there is much in the spirit of the SEAR that firms not initially failing within scope should consider as aligned with good quality governance". RFSPs which are not in Phase 1 of SEAR should therefore consider the presence of the new regime and whether it may be appropriate to comply with the spirit of SEAR by ensuring that individual responsibilities for senior managers are mapped and clearly allocated across the firm's senior management. This is to ensure that it is very clear who is individually accountable for what and in order to ensure that the business and its risks are being properly managed.

Business Standards

The 2023 Act provides for the ability of the CBI of Ireland (CBI) to prescribe the "Business Standards" for the purposes of ensuring that in the conduct of its affairs a firm:

1. acts in the best interests of customers and of the integrity of the market;
2. acts honestly, fairly and professionally; and
3. acts with due skill, care and diligence.

The Business Standards are obligations which apply to the RFSP.

Protected Disclosures Legislation – Whistleblowing

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as amended provides that all employers (with 50 or more employees) and most RFSPs regardless of head count (including MiFID firms, UCITS management companies, AIFMs, externally managed UCITS and externally managed AIFs)  have and maintain secure, confidential and effective internal reporting channels and investigation procedures that comply with its requirements. Employees and other workers, including INEDS and NEDS as well as contractors have significant anti retaliation protection in connection with making a protected disclosure. Employers are required to appoint a designated person to acknowledge a report within 7 days, make diligent inquiries and to follow up with the reporter within three months in relation to the progress/outcome of the investigation. The Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act, 2013 as well as the European Union (Market Abuse) Regulations, 2016 set out whistleblowing requirements for in scope employees and anti retaliation protection.

All private-sector employers and employees in Singapore are regulated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). Legislation such as the Employment Act 1968, the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act 1990, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act 2006 prescribe general employment rights and obligations for both employers and employees, and are supplemented by various tripartite advisories and guidelines. Anti-workplace discrimination legislation is also expected in the second half of 2024.

From the perspective of financial services, financial institutions (FIs) and FI employees are regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). FIs are broadly categorised into four sectors: banking, capital markets, insurance, and payments. Statutes specific to each FI sector also apply. These include the Banking Act 1970, Securities and Futures Act 2001, Trust Companies Act 2005, Financial Advisers Act 2001, Insurance Act 1966, and Payment Services Act 2019. These are supplemented by MAS-issued directions, guidelines, codes, practice notes, circulars and policy statements.

A new Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 (FMSA) was also passed by Parliament in April 2022, consolidating and enhancing MAS’ powers. The FMSA will be implemented in phases, with the first phase having been implemented on 28 April 2023. This first phase addresses the porting over of provisions under the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act 1970 which relates to the MAS’ general powers over financial institutions, the anti-money laundering / countering of terrorism financing framework, and the Financial Dispute Resolution Schemes framework. The MAS has stated that the remaining phases are targeted for implementation in 2024.

2024 also saw the introduction of the Financial Institutions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2024. If passed, the bill will enhance, clarify and consolidate MAS’ powers across various acts to investigate, reprimand, supervise and inspect potential breaches and offences.

Contravening legislation (primary or subsidiary) and directions would generally constitute a criminal offence. Contravening advisories, guidelines, codes and practice notes would not generally constitute a criminal offence, but may result in regulatory or administrative consequences such as reprimands, censures or prohibition orders (in the case of MAS) or other administrative actions, such as a curtailment of work-pass privileges (in the case of MOM) – which is significant as work passes are a requirement for employing foreign nationals in Singapore.

Employment law in Switzerland is based mainly on the following sources, set out in order of priority:

• the Federal Constitution;
• Cantonal Constitutions;
• public law, particularly the Federal Act on Work in Industry, Crafts and Commerce (the Labour Act) and five ordinances issued under this Act regulating work, and health and safety conditions;
• civil law, particularly the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO);
• collective bargaining agreements, if applicable;
• individual employment agreements; and
• usage, custom, doctrine, and case law.

Depending on the regulatory status of the employer and the specific activities of financial services employees, respectively, Swiss financial market laws may also apply. They are, in particular, the Federal banking, financial institutions and insurance supervision regulations.

RFSPs must satisfy themselves that all CF and PCF candidates or employees comply with the F&P Standards. Pre-employment due diligence must be performed, including asking the candidate to certify they will comply with the F&P Standards and notify the RFSP immediately of any change in circumstance that may mean they no longer comply. Employers must continue to ensure that in scope employees comply with the F&P Standards and must complete an annual declaration to this effect. This means that due diligence must continue throughout the employment relationship and not just at the recruitment stage.

Candidates for PCF roles must complete an online individual questionnaire, which is submitted to the CBI in advance of appointment to the role through the Central Bank portal. The CBI must grant its approval for the PCF appointment before a candidate can take up the role. Any PCF offer of employment must be conditional on that approval being obtained. The CBI may request applicants attend an interview as part of the approval process.

Employers should take all reasonable steps to secure references from previous employers in order to due diligence the candidate's compliance with the F&P Standards and their suitability for the role. However, an employer is not obliged to issue a reference in respect of a former employee which means that a prospective employer may not be able to secure a reference from a previous employer.  The CBI does not oblige employers to either issue or obtain a reference as part of screening checks, however employers must make good efforts to do so.

There are material obstacles from a data privacy and practical perspective to employers conducting criminal background checks in relation to prospective employees. Data relating to criminal convictions is special category data under the GDPR. Employers would need to satisfy both Article 6 and Article 9 requirements under the GDPR to justify the processing of this data. In terms of Article 9, this means employers would need to show reasons of substantial public interest or that they are carrying out their legal obligations in processing the data.  In terms of Article 6 the employer will need to show that the processing is necessary to comply with a legal obligation to which the employer is subject or the processing is necessary for the employer's legitimate interests for example to ensure the suitability and honesty of its employees and to protect its reputation. Employers are also prevented from asking candidates about "spent convictions" which are usually minor criminal offences dating back over seven years.

Pre-employment medical checks must also have a clear legal basis justifying the processing of an employee's medical and health information.

Pre-screening measures are only required if the FI employee is going to be involved in the provision of financial services (or other MAS-regulated activities).

Such employees need to pass a fit-and-proper assessment, referring to the MAS Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria. Criteria to be considered include the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation; competence and capability; and financial soundness.

In considering the employee’s honesty, integrity and reputation, relevant factors include whether the employee has been the subject of proceedings or investigations (whether criminal or disciplinary) or has been dismissed or asked to resign. MAS’ Circular CMI 01/2011 also sets out MAS’ expectations on due diligence checks, declarations and documentation concerning employees who are expected to be representatives of specific FIs. Among other things, this entails conducting reference checks with the previous employers of the FI’s proposed employees.

In December 2023, MAS issued its response to a May 2021 consultation paper which sought to address issues arising from the recycling of “bad apples” through FIs. In doing so, the MAS noted it will proceed with its proposal to impose mandatory requirements to conduct and respond to reference checks. The anticipated reference check regime will apply to specific groups of employees, with the information to be addressed in reference checks standarised. The MAS will look to consult on the relevant draft notices in this respect in due course, and this will bear watching.

For more senior roles (eg, senior managers, material risk personnel, directors, committee members, chairpersons and key executives), FIs are expected to ensure that they are fit and proper for their roles. MAS’ prior approval may also have to be obtained or notices may have to be made, depending on the licence, registration and role sought. FIs in these sectors are expected to conduct more rigorous checks before seeking MAS’ approval or submitting a notice, with a greater emphasis on considering circumstances that may give rise to a conflict of interest.

Under Swiss civil law, there is no requirement to apply pre-screening measures. However, while not a statutory requirement under Swiss financial market laws per se, companies subject to these laws apply pre-screening measures to ensure that a prospective financial services employee meets the requirements set forth by these laws. In particular, regulated companies such as banks, securities firms, insurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective investment schemes and asset managers are required to obtain authorisation from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) relating to strategic and executive management and each change thereto.

As a general rule, the higher the responsibility or position of a person, the more requirements financial services employees may need to fulfil. Persons holding executive or overall management functions (eg, a member of the board or members of the senior management) are required to fulfil certain requirements set forth by the applicable Swiss financial market regulations. Such requirements may include providing current CVs showing relevant work experience and education as well as excerpts from the debt and criminal register. It may also include providing various declarations (eg, concerning pending and concluded proceedings, qualified participations and other mandates). Furthermore, financial services employees holding certain control functions (eg, compliance officer, risk officer and their deputies) may also be required to prove that they are suitable for the position by providing, for example, a current CV showing relevant work experience and education.

The following documents should be in place:

• written statement of terms of employment e.g., a written contract of employment that complies with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994-2014 and the European Union (Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions) Regulations 2022;
• grievance and disciplinary policy;
• protected disclosures policy;
• dignity at work policy (anti-harassment and bullying prevention);
• safety statement; and
• where possible, an employee handbook that details all the statutory leave policies and other bespoke policies of the RFSP.

Reference checks, declarations and other documentation to ensure that the employee is a fit and proper person should be requested. In addition, notices to MAS or MAS’ approval may be required for more senior roles (see question 2).

There should also be an employment contract in place, addressing matters such as individual licences (where required) and continued compliance with all applicable MAS guidelines, notices, advisories and regulations. In drafting these contracts, FIs should take into account MAS’ Guidelines and Advisories, including the Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria, Individual Accountability and Conduct, and (where relevant) Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management. Robust confidentiality obligations and other restrictive covenants are also commonplace.

No special contractual documents are required when engaging employees within the financial services industry.

However, it is generally recommended to conclude a written employment contract with each employee. FINMA, for instance, requires a copy of employment contracts concluded with senior management of regulated entities.
In particular, the employment contract should reference the employer’s (regulatory) set of directions and the employee’s obligation to comply with said instructions. In addition, because regulated companies such as banks, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are required to obtain authorisation from FINMA before the engagement of key personnel, it may be sensible to include a condition precedent relating to FINMA’s acceptance of the relevant employee in the employment contract.

The mandatory, partially mandatory, and optional elements of an individual employment contract are outlined in article 319 et seq of the CO (in particular regarding remuneration, working time, vacation, and incapacity for work). Further regulations may apply based on collective bargaining agreements.

Yes, under the Minimum Competency Regime (see question 1), employees who perform certain prescribed functions and roles in prescribed RFSPs such as insurance businesses and credit unions, must meet the required competencies and qualifications standards.

The 2023 Act also introduces a new requirement that persons can only be permitted to perform a CF role (including a PCF role) where a certificate of compliance with the F&P Standards given by the firm is in force (Certification Regime).

As part of the Certification Regime, a certificate of compliance may only be given if:

1. the firm is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person complies with the F&P Standards; and
2. the person has agreed to abide by the F&P Standards and to notify the firm without delay if for any reason they no longer comply with the F&P Standards.

Representatives, senior management employees and other office holders may require MAS’ approval prior to an appointment or assuming an office (see question 2).

In particular, MAS must be notified of the appointment of representatives providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001 or carrying out regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (dealing in capital markets products, advising on corporate finance, fund and REIT management, product financing, providing credit ratings or custodial services). With some exceptions, they must be at least 21 years old, satisfy minimum academic qualification requirements, and complete prescribed modules of the Capital Markets and Financial Advisory Services examinations.

Depending on the status of the employing entity and the position of the financial services employee, a special certification or, more generally, proof of relevant work experience and sufficient education is required.

As a general rule, persons holding executive, overall management, oversight or control functions (eg, a member of the board, CEO, compliance officer, risk officer or their deputies) in regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are required to demonstrate to FINMA that they have sufficient relevant work experience and education. As proof, FINMA requests current CVs, diplomas, certifications and contact details of references. The scope and nature of the future business activity and the size and complexity of the company in question also need to be considered.

Furthermore, client advisers of so-called financial service providers (eg, investment advisers) must have sufficient expertise on the code of conduct and the necessary expertise required to perform their work. Client advisors often prove that these requirements have been met by successfully attending special courses. In addition, insurance intermediaries registered with FINMA’s insurance intermediary register have to prove that they have undergone sufficient education and have sufficient qualifications. For this purpose, FINMA has published a list of different Swiss and foreign educational qualifications deemed to be sufficient on its website.

Yes. Common Conduct Standards and Additional Conduct Standards were introduced by the 2023 Act and employers need to update employees' contractual documents to reflect same.

The Common Conduct Standards set out standards of behaviour expected of individuals carrying out Controlled Functions (CFs) within firms. The Common Conduct Standards are basic standards such as acting with honesty and integrity with due skill, care and diligence and in the best interest of customers. An individual that is subject to the Common Conduct Standards will be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that the Common Conduct Standards are met.

In addition, senior executives, which includes individuals performing PCF roles (e.g. the directors, designated persons) and other individuals who exercise significant influence on the conduct of a firm's affairs (CF1) will also have Additional Conduct Standards related to running the part of the business for which they are responsible. An individual who performs a PCF/CF1 role should take reasonable steps to ensure that the Additional Conduct Standards are met.

When SEAR comes into effect, those performing senior executive functions will be required to have detailed statements of responsibility setting out the scope of their role. The Duty of Responsibility which the PCF will have under SEAR is extensive. The duty extends to taking any step that is reasonable in the circumstances to avoid a breach by their firm of its obligations in relation to an aspect of the firm's affairs for which the PCF is responsible.

There are a number of General Prescribed Responsibilities that will need to be assigned to PCFs:

(a)   Performance by the Firm of its obligations under SEAR

(b)   Performance by the Firm of its obligations under the F&P framework

(c)   Performance by the Firm of its obligations under the new Conduct Standards

(d)   Responsibility for overseeing the adoption of the firm’s policy on diversity and inclusion.

Employees who are managers and executives or above generally have enhanced responsibilities, particularly regarding corporate governance.

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that senior managers (ie, those principally responsible for day-to-day management) should be clearly identified, fit and proper for their roles, and responsible for the actions of employees and the conduct of the business under their purview. As for material risk personnel (ie, individuals who have the authority to make decisions or conduct activities that can significantly impact the FI’s safety and soundness, or cause harm to a significant segment of the FI’s customers or other stakeholders), they should be fit and proper for their roles, and subject to effective risk governance, appropriate incentive structures, and standards of conduct.

Subsidiary legislation or other MAS guidelines specific to the FI’s sector also contain corporate governance regulations, prescribing responsibilities to the board of directors, nominating committees, or senior management.

MAS’ Guidelines on Risk Management Practices – Board and Senior Management further states that an FI’s board and senior management are responsible for governing risk within an institution. This includes setting up appropriate risk management systems, stress-testing programmes and business contingency plans.

Specifically, employees holding executive, overall management, oversight or control functions in regulated companies are responsible for ensuring that the companies’ organization ensures the continued compliance with applicable financial market laws. Swiss financial market laws do not have enhanced responsibilities for different employee categories. Instead, a person’s fitness and propriety are assessed within the context of the specific requirements and functions of a given company, the scope of activities at that company, and the complexity of that company.

No.

The MAS keeps a register of appointed representatives conducting regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Act 2001 (see question 4) or providing financial advisory services under the Financial Advisers Act 2001. The register is updated based on an FI’s notifications of appointment to the MAS, with prerequisites applying to the appointment of such representatives (see question 4).

There is no universal register of all financial services employees. Rather, different Swiss financial market laws provide for a registration requirement that may apply to individual financial service employees. Whether a particular financial market law, and, consequently, a registration requirement, applies to a financial services employee depends specifically on the regulatory status of the employing entity and the particular activity of that employee.

• Also, client advisers of Swiss or foreign financial service providers (eg, investment advisers) may be required to register with the adviser register, unless an exemption applies. Client advisers are the natural persons who perform financial services on behalf of a financial service provider or in their own capacity as financial service providers. Client advisers are entered in the register of advisers if they prove that i) they have sufficient knowledge of the code of conduct set out in the financial services regulations and the necessary expertise required to perform their activities, ii) their employee has taken out professional indemnity insurance or that equivalent collateral exists, and iii) their employee is affiliated with a recognized Swiss ombudsman in their capacity as a financial service provider (if such affiliation duty exists).

Furthermore, “non-tied” insurance intermediaries (ie, persons who offer or conclude insurance contracts on behalf of insurance companies) are required to register with FINMA’s register of insurance companies. To register, persons must inter alia prove that they have sufficient qualifications and hold professional indemnity insurance or provide an equivalent financial surety. “Tied” intermediaries will no longer be able to register voluntarily in the FINMA register (unless this is required by the respective country of operation for activities abroad).

There are prescriptive, sector-specific requirements, which apply to the remuneration of specified categories of employees or directors, and which apply in the asset management, investment services, banking, and insurance sectors.

Employers in these sectors are tasked with ensuring that the remuneration paid to material risk takers (individuals whose professional activities have a material impact on an RFSP's risk profile) or identified staff align with the RFSP risk profile.

There are detailed rules with technical guidance (emanating from EU law) specific to each sector, but at a high level they (to differing degrees) set out rules on; variable remuneration composition, ratios or other metrics to compare variable to fixed remuneration to ensure it is appropriate; malus requirements, which would allow the RFSP to cancel or reduce the employee's variable remuneration before it is paid out; and clawback provisions which allow RFSPs to recover variable remuneration after it has been awarded. It is important to ensure that employees' contracts of employment acknowledge that any variable remuneration will be subject to all regulatory restrictions and rules and may be clawed back in certain circumstances.

The CBI's 2014 Guidelines on Variable Remuneration Arrangements for Sales Staff also emphasise the importance of remuneration structures to have sufficient deterrents built into them (such as malus and clawback mechanisms) to avoid incentivising undesirable/risky behaviours from sales staff in the banking, insurance and investment services sectors.

Disclosure requirements may apply depending on the employee’s role. For example, with some exemptions, financial advisors are required to disclose to the client the remuneration that they receive or will receive for making any recommendations in respect of a particular investment product, or executing a purchase or sale contract relating to a designated investment product on their clients’ behalf.

MAS’ Guidelines on Corporate Governance (applicable to designated financial holding companies, banks, and some insurers) also requires the FI’s board of directors to have a formal and transparent procedure for developing policies on and fixing the remuneration of directors, executives, and key management personnel. A separate remuneration committee made up of non-executive directors must be established to make the relevant recommendations. MAS expects compliance with these guidelines in a manner commensurate with the size, nature of activities and risk profile of the FI. Diverging from the guidelines is acceptable to the extent that FIs explicitly state and explain how their practices are consistent with the policy intent of the relevant principle.

Companies listed on the Singapore stock exchange have similar requirements under MAS’ Code of Corporate Governance, and these also exist in subsidiary legislation applicable to the FI. As for all other non-exempt companies, director and employee remuneration will ordinarily have to be disclosed through publicly available financial statements, under applicable accounting standards.

Apart from the above, there are no strict limits on compensation or requirements to impose deferral, malus or clawback provisions. Employers may include such provisions in their contracts, but should be aware that the enforcement of such provisions may be subject to challenge.

Swiss civil law provides for special rules that govern the compensation of current and former members of inter alia the board and executive committee (Ordinance against Excessive Compensation) of Swiss companies limited by shares that are listed on a Swiss or foreign stock exchange. In addition, there are disclosure provisions listed companies need to follow concerning remuneration under stock exchange regulations.

In addition to the above, FINMA has formulated ten principles regarding remuneration that banks, securities firms, financial groups and conglomerates, insurance companies, insurance groups and conglomerates are required to implement. The principles serve as minimum standards for the design, implementation and disclosure of remuneration schemes.

These schemes should not incentivise to take inappropriate risks and thereby potentially damage the stability of financial institutions.

One of the focal points of the principles is variable remuneration that depends on business performance and risk. In particular, all variable remuneration must have been earned by the company over the long term. Consequently, remuneration is dependent on performance, taking into account the sustainability of such performance as well as the risks. That said, FINMA’s principles do not limit the amount of variable remuneration. However, FINMA aims to prevent the granting of high remuneration based on large risks and the generation of short-term, unsustainable earnings. Furthermore, persons who have significant responsibility relating to the risk or receive a high total remuneration, must receive a significant part of the variable remuneration on a deferred basis and consequently, in a way that is linked to the current risk. Under the FINMA principles, "clawback" and "malus" arrangements are permitted.

Yes. A CF employee, subject to the Minimum Competency regime, will be required to complete CPD training. Evidence of meeting that CPD requirement is also a factor in determining a person's F&P. RFSPs must maintain records of CPD training provided to CFs to demonstrate compliance with the minimum competency regime.

The 2023 Act also introduces new training obligations for those subject to the Common and Additional Conduct Standards, with firms being required to train those persons on how these obligations apply to them and their new duties of responsibility. Attendance at, or completion of, training in respect of the Conduct Standards should be mandatory and such attendance should be carefully documented with refresher training rolled out periodically.

Employers within the scope of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Acts 2010 - 2021 (including RFSPs) are required to provide annual training to relevant staff and directors on its requirements and the RFSP must have procedures in place to comply with that legislation and associated guidance.

Depending on the RFSP's business, additional mandatory training may be needed annually, for example, on topics such as market abuse.

The designated person for responding to protected disclosures should be trained and competent in the identification and handling of protected disclosures.

Examinations (see question 4) and continuing education requirements apply to certain employees in the capital markets services, financial advice and insurance sectors.

In general, regulated companies (eg, banks, insurance companies or asset managers) are required to set up and maintain an organisation that ensures compliance with applicable financial market laws. Given the organisational measures and depending on the regulatory status of the employing entity and the position and activities of the financial services employee, there are training requirements.

While Swiss financial market regulations do not have an exhaustive list of exact training requirements, FINMA requires, among others, that the highest bodies of supervised companies (eg, executives of board members of banks, securities firms, insurance and reinsurance companies, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers) can fulfil the requirements of the so-called fit and proper test. These requirements extend to all character-related and professional elements that enable an officeholder to manage a supervised company in compliance with applicable laws. Part of the professional elements are relevant work experience and education. In addition, persons holding key positions (eg, compliance and risk officers and their deputies) are required to demonstrate sufficient know-how because of their work experience and education.

That said, the Swiss financial services and insurance supervisory regulations provide for more concrete training requirements. In particular, client advisers of Swiss and foreign financial service providers (eg, investment advisers) may need to demonstrate that they have sufficient knowledge of the code of conduct rules of the Swiss financial services regulation and the necessary expertise required to perform their activities. In addition, insurance intermediaries registered with FINMA’s insurance intermediary register have to prove that they have undergone sufficient education and have sufficient qualifications. On its website, FINMA has published a list of different educational Swiss and foreign qualifications that it deems to be sufficient.

Yes there are. They are:

• the F&P Standards;
• the minimum competency regime; and
• the IAF and SEAR (see question 1).

There are also sector-specific conduct of business requirements in legislation and codes, including the Consumer Protection Code 2012, the MiFID II regime, and other regulatory requirements applicable to RFSPs based on their industry sector that apply and deal with matters such as:

• error handling,
• disclosures to customers,
• acting in the best interests of customers; and
• complaints handling.

Generally, MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct emphasises the importance of reinforcing standards of proper conduct among all employees, while employees conducting regulated activities must remain fit and proper for their roles under MAS’ Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria.

Guidelines, codes, directions, notices and legislation in relation to corporate governance and risk management (including those mentioned in questions 5 and 6) should also be considered.

Depending on the regulatory status of the employing entity and, as the case may be, on the exact activities of a financial service employee, a financial service employee needs to adhere to certain code of conduct rules (eg, regarding transparency and care, documentation and accountability).

Supervised companies in Switzerland are, in principle, required to set up an organisation that ensures the compliance with Swiss financial market laws and its statutory code of conduct rules. For this purpose, among others, companies are required to issue regulations that their employees must follow.

Under Swiss financial market laws, code of conduct rules are generally based on abstract statutory rules and concretized by recognised privately organised associations.

In particular, several professional organisations (eg, the Swiss Bankers Association or the Asset Management Association) and self-regulated organisations issue their own set of code of conduct rules that members are required to follow.

The CBI expects RFSPs to be open and transparent in their engagement, including concerning compliance with the F&P Standards and the Common Conduct Standards. While early versions of the IAF regulations and related guidance contained an obligation on a RFSP to report to the CBI if disciplinary action had been taken against an individual, the obligation was removed from the latest version of the draft legislation. The Guidance indicated that the CBI would expect that they would have already received relevant details as it provides that firms and persons performing PCF roles are required to report to the CBI where they suspect that a "prescribed contravention" may have occurred for the purposes of the CBI legislative framework and the CBI states that a breach of the Common Conduct Standards and/or Additional Conduct Standards is a "prescribed contravention" for these purposes.

Forms need to be submitted to the MAS when an individual ceases to act as a representative in regulated activities or financial advisory services. Depending on the FI, the MAS may also have to be informed of appointments or changes of representatives, directors, chief executive officers, and other key officeholders (see questions 2 and 4).

MAS notices are also required for the reporting of misconduct for employees who are representatives of certain capital market service providers, financial advisers, and insurance broking staff. Examples of reportable misconduct include acts involving fraud, dishonesty or other offences of a similar nature, and non-compliance with regulatory requirements. Specific declaration forms and timelines may apply depending on the FI. An FI may also be required to submit updates on cases where investigations have not concluded or disciplinary action was not taken, or submit a declaration that there was no misconduct reported in a given calendar year.  

While not specific to financial services employees, the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 requires any person with knowledge, or reasonable grounds to suspect, that any property is being used in connection with criminal activity to file a Suspicious Transaction Report with the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. MAS notices concerning the prevention of anti-money laundering and incidents of fraud emphasise this obligation.

As a general principle, supervised companies are required to ensure that persons holding, in particular, executive, overall management, oversight or control functions fulfil the requirements of the “fit and proper” test. Consequently, such persons must be of good repute and can guarantee compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

If a person cannot guarantee that the regulatory requirements are fulfilled at all times (eg, because of a material breach of its duties) the employing entity and its audit companies may be required to immediately report to FINMA, respectively, any incident that is of significance.

Yes. Concerning the prevention of wrongdoing, RFSPs should implement a written protected disclosures/whistleblowing policy that explains the secure and confidential internal and external reporting channels available to workers who wish to report relevant wrongdoings. The anti-retaliation protection should be explained and workers should understand from the policy how a report of relevant wrongdoing will be dealt with by the RFSP.

RFSPs should ensure that they have clear, up-to-date and fully compliant policies governing:

• dignity at work (including anti-harassment and anti-bullying measures); and
• grievance and disciplinary policies.

RFSPs should ensure that employees are trained on the RFSP's dignity at work (anti-bullying and harassment) policies to ensure that the RFSP's values, culture and commitment to preventing harassment and bullying are clear regarding their rights and obligations.

MAS’ Guidelines on Individual Accountability and Conduct provide that appropriate policies, systems and processes should be put in place to enforce expected conduct, including transparent investigation and disciplinary procedures, formal whistleblowing programmes, and a process for the reporting and escalation of issues to senior management on any issues related to employee conduct. Anti-workplace discrimination legislation is also expected in 2024.

There are no specific whistleblowing laws in Switzerland, but employees have a right to report grievances and misconduct to their employer, provided that they do not commit a breach of a fiduciary duty or cause damage (eg, malicious false reports).

However, employees must also report material facts or incidents of misconduct and the misconduct of other employees discovered in the course of their work to their employer under the employee's duty of loyalty.

On the other hand, an employee’s duty of loyalty and, in particular, an employee’s statutory duty of confidentiality flowing from it may also give rise to a duty to not report.

Based on the current legal situation, there may be a conflict between an employee’s need to report grievances (internally or externally) and a possible duty to not report with regard to an external report. An attempt to resolve this conflict through legislation has failed, and a new attempt to introduce whistleblowing legislation in Switzerland is not expected anytime soon.

Concerning whistleblowing by employees to a public authority or even to the public, employees are regularly prevented from doing so by confidentiality obligations under criminal law. Any justification for such a disclosure will usually only be examined in the context of a criminal investigation against the employee.

However, larger companies have taken measures and set up certain processes to uncover and prevent wrongdoing without having to do so under mandatory laws. For instance, companies have implemented internal or external reporting offices.

When it comes to harassment, an employer is explicitly required to protect employees from sexual harassment (prevention) and to protect any victims from further disadvantages (active protection). According to the Gender Equality Act, victims of sexual harassment may be awarded compensation of up to six months' wages by the courts, in addition to damages and restitution, unless the employer can prove that they have "taken all measures that are necessary and appropriate according to experience to prevent sexual harassment and that they can reasonably be expected to take”. Employers are therefore advised to actively address the issue of sexual harassment (as well as general discrimination and bullying) in the workplace and include it in their regulations or directives.

Where possible it is important to try to resolve any outstanding issues that a PCF has or may have before the PCF's contract is terminated. An RFSP is required to give details of the circumstances of a PCF's termination of employment and to confirm whether or not there are outstanding issues regarding the PCF.

It is important to ensure that there are adequate provisions to govern the following in any settlement agreement or termination arrangements:

• adequate handover of operational responsibility;
• continued co-operation on operational matters within the employee's knowledge or in relation to matters that may subsequently be investigated by the CBI;
• secure return of all company property including any personal data; and
• post-termination confidentiality obligations and any other necessary post-termination restrictions.

Depending on the employee concerned, the MAS may have to be notified of an employee ceasing to hold an office or to act as a representative (see questions 2, 4 and 11). Termination-related benefits and remuneration may also require disclosure (see question 7).

Apart from this, there are no industry-specific rules or protocols applicable to terminations. Singapore’s Employment Act and the Tripartite Guidelines on Wrongful Dismissal, of general application to all employers, also prescribe rules concerning notice periods, the timing of final payments, and circumstances in which a termination may be wrongful, among other things.

There are no specific rules or protocols that apply when terminating the employment of an employee in the financial services sector. However, because changes in the strategic and executive management of, in particular, regulated companies such as banks, insurance companies, securities firms, fund management companies, managers of collective assets or asset managers are subject to a prior authorization by FINMA, the timing of termination and re-hiring of particular persons should be considered.

The general rules on the termination of an employment relationship apply under Swiss law: any employment contract concluded for an indefinite period may be unilaterally terminated by both employer and employee, subject to the contractual or (if no contractual notice period was agreed) statutory notice periods for any reason (ordinary termination).

The termination notice needs to be physically received before the notice period can start, meaning the notice needs to be received by the employee before the end of a month so that the notice period can start on the first day of the next month. If notice is not received before the end of the month, the notice period would start the month following the receipt of the notice. A termination notice might be either delivered by mail or personally.

Swiss law does not provide for payment in lieu of a notice period. The only option in this regard is to either send the employee on garden leave or to agree within the termination agreement to terminate the employment relationship per an earlier termination date than the one provided for in the termination notice.

As a general rule, an employment contract may be terminated by either party for any reason. However, Swiss statutory law provides for protection from termination by notice for both employers and employees, distinguishing between abusive and untimely notices of termination.

Based on social policy concerns, the employer must observe certain waiting periods, during which a notice cannot validly be served (so-called untimely notice). Such waiting periods apply (art. 336c CO), for example, during compulsory military or civil defence service, full- or part-time absence from work due to illness or an accident, or during an employee’s pregnancy and 16 weeks following the birth of the child. Any notice given by the employer during these waiting periods is void. Any notice given before the respective period is effective, but once the special situation has occurred and for the period it lasts, the running of the applicable notice period is suspended and only continues after the end of the period in question.

In addition, Swiss civil law defines certain grounds based on which terminations are considered abusive (article 336 CO). Termination by the employer might be considered abusive (eg, if it is based on a personal characteristic of the other party (eg, gender, race, age), or if the other party exercises a right guaranteed by the Swiss Federal Constitution (eg, religion or membership in a political party) unless the exercise of this right violates an obligation of the contract of employment or is seriously prejudicial to the work climate). If the employer abusively terminates the employment contract, the employer has to pay damages to the employee and a penalty of up to six months' remuneration (article 336a CO). Nevertheless, an abusive termination remains valid.

Regarding settlement agreements, Swiss employment law allows the conclusion of such agreements, but there are strict limits on the parties’ freedom of contract. Termination agreements may not be concluded that circumvent statutory provisions on employee protection. According to Swiss case law, termination agreements are usually valid and enforceable if both parties make real concessions, and if the agreement is also favourable for the employee. To conclude a termination agreement initiated by the employer, the employee must also be granted a sufficient reflection period. No further formalities need to be observed when concluding termination agreements, although it is generally advisable to have them in writing.

No there are no bespoke rules that apply. Post termination restrictions in Ireland are void as being in restraint of trade unless it can be shown that the restrictions are necessary to protect an employer's legitimate proprietary interest and they are proportionate and reasonable in their scope and duration to achieve that protection[i].

[i] Law as of 15 April 2024

Singapore law in relation to post-termination restrictive covenants is of general application and not specific to the financial services sector. Such restraints are prima facie void, but may be valid and enforceable if they are reasonable (both in the interests of the parties and the public), and if they go no further than what is necessary to protect a party’s legitimate proprietary interest.

The Singapore Courts have recognised that an employer has legitimate proprietary interests in its trade connections (commonly protected by restraints against the solicitation of clients or customers); the maintenance of a stable, trained workforce (commonly protected by restraints against the poaching of employees); and its confidential information and trade secrets (commonly protected by confidentiality restraints). This is not a closed list.

Non-competition clauses are however relatively more difficult to enforce as compared to other restrictive covenants, and they may not be enforceable at all under Singapore law as it presently stands if an employer’s legitimate proprietary interests are already covered by other restraints. Even then, it may still be possible for the employer to obtain an ex parte interim injunction for non-competition though.

Guidelines on restrictive covenants are also expected to be released in the second half of 2024, which will look to shape norms and provide employers and employees with guidance regarding the inclusion and enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. 

There are no particular rules that apply concerning the use of post-termination restrictive covenants for employees in the financial services sector in Switzerland. Rather, general post-contractual non-compete regulations come into play: the parties of an employment contract may agree on a non-compete clause, which must be included in the employment contract in writing to be valid. For the non-compete clause to be relevant, it must be sufficiently limited in terms of time, place and subject matter. Normally, the duration of a post-termination non-compete clause is no more than one year; however, the statutorily permissible duration is three years.

As a prerequisite for a contractual non-compete clause to be binding, access to sensitive data is required. The employee must either have access to customer data or manufacturing or business secrets. However, access alone is not enough. There must also be the possibility of harming the employer using this knowledge.

If a relationship between the customer and the employee or employer is personal (which is, for example, the case for lawyers or doctors), a post-termination non-compete clause is not applicable according to the Federal Supreme Court.

If there is an excessive non-compete clause, this can be restricted by a judge. In practice, most of the time, no restriction of the post-termination non-compete clause is imposed if the employer offers consideration in return for the agreement. The prohibition of competition may become invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the clause can become irrelevant if the employer has no more interest in maintaining the non-compete clause. Secondly, the clause is not effective if the employer has terminated the employment relationship. However, this does not apply if the employee has given the employer a reason to terminate the employment relationship.

Swiss employment law does not provide for any compensation for a post-termination non-compete clause.

Yes. It is possible to use NDAs in Ireland and it is quite common for them to be used, but there are some limitations on their use and enforceability.

Certain mandatory reporting obligations will override a contractual non-disclosure agreement, such as the requirement for PCFs under section 38(2) of the CBI (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 to disclose certain matters to the CBI.

Further, an NDA cannot extinguish an employee's right to anti-retaliation protection where the employee makes a protected disclosure either internally or externally under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 - 2022.

NDAs are generally lawful in Singapore, although the extent of their enforceability depends on their contents. For example, restrictive covenants can be subject to further scrutiny (see question 13). While not subject to any particular form or rules, employers should take particular care to specify the type of information protected under the NDA, so that employees have a clear understanding of the protected information – and to enhance the enforceability of the NDA.

Under Singapore common law, in addition to breach of contract, a party may also bring an action for breach of confidence. A plaintiff will have to show on the facts that the information is confidential and was imparted in circumstances giving rise to an obligation of confidence (including if confidential information has been accessed or acquired without a plaintiff’s knowledge or consent), which will then invoke the presumption of a breach of confidence. The burden will then fall on the defendant to rebut this presumption.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are generally lawful in Switzerland. However, NDAs are not regulated by statutory law and therefore do not have to follow any particular statutory form or rule. Nevertheless, most NDAs often contain a similar basic structure.

The core clauses of an NDA concern:

• manufacturing and business secrets or the scope of further confidentiality;
• the purpose of use;
• the return and destruction of devices containing confidential information; and
• post-contractual confidentiality obligations.

As a general rule, it is recommended to use the written form.

To ensure possible enforcement of an NDA in the employment context, the requirements of a post-contractual non-compete obligation (see below) must be met.