Employment in Financial Services

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.

The UAE has four different regulators responsible for the authorisation and supervision of banks, insurers, and other financial institutions.

There are two regulators "on-shore" in the UAE, namely, (i) the UAE Central Bank, which is the state institution responsible for banking and insurance regulation, as well as monetary policy, and has authority over all licensed financial institutions in the UAE, including those in the financial free zones; and (ii) the Emirates Securities and Commodities Authorities (ESCA)  that regulates markets, listed companies, and securities brokers.

There are two financial free zones in the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), who were established as special economic zones with independent jurisdictions through amendment to the UAE Constitution.  Within the free zones, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) is the regulator of the DIFC and the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) is the regulator of the ADGM.

As the DIFC and ADGM free zones have been established as special economic zones in which financial services are conducted, most of the applicable legislation in the UAE which governs financial services is found in the two free zones.  Therefore, unless expressly referenced, the responses for the UAE in this guide consider the position in the DIFC and ADGM only.

The Dubai Financial Services Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the DIFC.  The key legislation is the Regulatory Law of 2004, as amended, which is administered by the DFSA and is described as the cornerstone legislation of the regulatory regime.

The ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority is the financial regulatory body of financial services conducted in or from the ADGM.  The key legislation is the Financial Services and Markets Regulations (FSMR), which sets out the legislative and regulatory framework for financial services in the ADGM.  The FSMR was modelled on the UK’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other related legislation.

Finally, all employees in the private sector (excluding the two financial free zones) are subject to Federal Decree-law No. 33 of 2021, as amended (the Labour Law).  In the DIFC, employees are subject to DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended (the DIFC Employment Law) and in the ADGM, employees are subject to the ADGM Employment Regulations 2019 (the ADGM Employment Regulations).  In addition to the employment legislation described above, a number of other laws will be applicable to employees in the UAE, including Federal Decree-law No. 30 of 2021 containing the Penal Code.

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.

In the DIFC, an individual who performs a “licensed function” must be approved in advance by the DFSA.   The roles which fall within the meaning of an authorised person for the DFSA includes someone appointed as:

• the Senior Executive Officer, who has ultimate responsibility for the day-to- day management, supervision and control of one or more (or all) of an authorised firm’s financial services carried on, in or from the DIFC;
• the Finance Officer;
• Compliance Officer;, and
• Money Laundering Reporting Officer. 

Where a firm proposes to appoint an authorised individual, an application to the DFSA must be made in advance; the DFSA will make an assessment of the  individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an authorised individual. The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role, and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

In the ADGM, an individual who performs a “controlled function” must be approved in advance by the ADGM.  A controlled function includes someone appointed as the Senior Executive Officer, Finance Officer, Compliance Officer, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer.

Where a firm proposes to appoint someone in a controlled function, an application to the ADGM must be made in advance, The ADGM will make an assessment of  that individual in order to satisfy itself that they are fit and proper to be an approved individual.  The Regulator will consider the individual’s integrity, competence and capability, financial soundness, their proposed role and any other relevant matters.  That individual may not be considered as fit and proper where they have been declared bankrupt, convicted for a serious criminal offence, or incapable - through mental or physical incapacity - of managing their affairs.

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.

Employees must be provided with an employment contract across the different jurisdictions in the UAE.  This applies to all employees, regardless of whether they work in the financial services industry.

In the DIFC, the DIFC Employment Law requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• the salary and any allowances to be provided to the employee;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work;
• vacation leave and pay;
• notice to be given by either party to terminate employment; 
• the employee’s job title;
• confirmation as to whether the contract is for an indefinite period or for a fixed term;
• the place of work;
• applicable disciplinary rules and grievances procedures;
• the probation period;
• a reference to any applicable policies and procedures (including any codes of conduct) and where these can be accessed; and
• any other matter that may be prescribed in any regulations issued under the DIFC Employment Law.

In the ADGM, the ADGM Employment Regulations requires employers to provide their employees with a written contract that must specify the following:

• the parties’ names;
• the start date;
• remuneration;
• the applicable pay period;
• hours and days of work; and
• any terms and conditions relating to:
  • vacation leave and pay, national holiday entitlement and pay;
  • sick leave and sick pay;
  • the notice period that either party is required to give to the other in order to terminate employment;
  • the employee’s job title;
  • whether the employment is for an indefinite or fixed term;
  • the place of work;
  • any disciplinary rules or grievance procedures applicable to the employee; and

any other matter that may be prescribed by the employer.

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.

As noted in question 2 -, employees undertaking certain regulated roles must obtain the pre-approval of the relevant regulatory authority.  The regulators in each case will assess the fitness and propriety of the relevant individual.
 

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.

There are no provisions that lay down enhanced responsibilities for a particular category of employees in the financial services sector.
 

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 is no public register of authorised individuals.

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.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised entities. In particular, the guidance identifies that the governing body of an authorised entity ought to consider the risk to which the firm could be exposed to as a result of the conduct or behaviour of its employees, and to consider the ratio and balance between fixed and variable remuneration components, the nature of the duties and functions performed by the relevant employees, the assessment criteria against which performance based components of remuneration are to be awarded, and the integrity and objectivity of any performance assessment against that criteria.

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.

The DFSA General Rulebook requires authorised entities to ensure that the Senior Executive Officer, Compliance Officers, and Money Laundering Reporting Officer, must complete a minimum of 15 hours of continuing professional development in each calendar year.  This continuing professional development must be relevant to the employee’s role and professional skill and knowledge, and consist of structured activities, such as courses, seminars, lectures, conferences, workshops, web-based seminars or e-learning, which require a commitment of 30 minutes or more.  The employee must also ensure that they maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

The FSRA General Rulebook requires an authorised entity to ensure that its directors and senior managers are fit and proper and its guidance suggests that whether any training has been untaken or is required should be considered.  In addition, an authorised entity should satisfy itself that an employee continues to be competent and capable of performing the role, has kept abreast of market, product, technology, legislative and regulatory developments that are relevant to the role, through training or other means, and is able to apply this knowledge.

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.

In the DIFC, the DFSA General Rulebook provides that authorised individuals must adhere to six principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Market conduct
• Principle 4 – Relations with the DFSA
• Principle 5 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 6 – Compliance
   

In the ADGM, the FSRA General Rulebook provides that authorized individuals must adhere to eleven principles, as follows:

• Principle 1 – Integrity
• Principle 2 – Due skill, care and diligence
• Principle 3 – Management, systems and control
• Principle 4 – Resources
• Principle 5 – Market conduct
• Principle 6 – Information and interests
• Principle 7 – Conflicts of Interest
• Principle 8 – Suitability
• Principle 9 – Customer assets and money
• Principle 10 – Relations with regulators
• Principle 11 – Compliance with high standards of corporate governance

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.

Both the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook provide that where an authorised firm requests the withdrawal of an authorised individual, they must provide to the regulator details of any circumstances in which they consider the individual is no longer fit and proper.  Where the individual is to be dismissed or has requested to resign, the firm must provide to the regulator a statement of the reason, or reasons, for the dismissal or resignation.

In addition, the DFSA and FSRA General Rulebooks contain broad obligations on any authorised firm to report to the regulator if it becomes aware of a range of occurrences, including any matter which could have a significant adverse effect on the authorised firm’s reputation, or a matter in relation the authorised firm which could result in serious adverse financial consequences to the financial system or to other firms, or a significant breach of a rule by the authorised firm or its employees.

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.

Whistleblowing

In the DIFC, whistleblowing is addressed both by the DFSA, who introduced its regulatory regime for whistleblowing in 2022 through amendment to its Regulatory Law 2004, as well as the more general obligations contained in the Operating Law of the DIFC Authority.

Under the Regulatory Law, any person who makes a qualifying disclosure to a specified person is entitled to protection under the law.  Similar provisions are contained in the Operating Law.

The disclosure may be made internally within the company, for example, to a director, officer or any person in a management position of the relevant company, or any person designated by that company to receive the disclosure of such information; or externally, for example, to the Registrar, Financial Services Regulator, Office of Data Protection, or criminal law enforcement agency in the UAE.

The qualifying disclosure must relate to the disclosure of information made in good faith, that relates to a reasonable suspicion that a regulated entity, or any of its employees or officers, has or may have, contravened a provision of legislation administered by the DFSA, or has engaged in money laundering, fraud, or other financial crime.

A person making a protected disclosure shall not be subject to any civil or contractual liability for making the disclosure, nor shall they be dismissed or otherwise suffer a detriment or disadvantage in connection with making the disclosure. 

The corresponding DFSA module sets out the DFSA’s expectations that companies should implement appropriate written policies in order to facilitate the reporting of any regulatory concerns by whistleblowers, and to assess, and, where appropriate, escalate regulatory concerns reported to it. 

The ADGM published Guiding Principles on Whistleblowing in December 2022, which whilst non-binding, were designed to assist entities and individuals in the ADGM in establishing whistleblowing frameworks and ensure that potential whistleblowers were encouraged to speak up and were fairly treated when they did so.  In March 2024, the ADGM announced a public consultation on proposals for a whistleblowing framework, which will lead to the introduction of Whistleblower Protections Regulations and amendments to the Employment Regulations.

Harassment

Harassment is not dealt with in the regulatory framework outlined above, but is contained in the applicable employment legislation.

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.

As noted in question 7, the DFSA General Rulebook and FSRA General Rulebook contain Best Practice Guidance for remuneration structure and strategies of authorised persons.  In this regard, both sets of guidance provide that where an authorised entity provides discretionary payouts on termination of employment (either by way of severance payments, or other payments, such as “golden parachutes”), these should be subject to appropriate limits or shareholder approval.  In addition, they should be aligned with the firm’s overall financial status and performance.

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.

The DFSA and FSRA Rulebooks do not regulate the use of post-termination restrictive covenants. It is fairly typical for financial services firms in both free zones to include non-dealing, non-solicitation, non-compete and similar restrictive covenants in their employment contracts. These are subject to the same common law rules on interpretation and enforceability as in any other sector.  In addition, whilst the courts in both the DIFC and ADGM will award injunctive relief, there is no similar right in the federal courts.  This means that the enforceability of an injunctive order outside of the geographic scope of the two free zones is uncertain.

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.

Non-disclosure agreements may be used in the UAE (including DIFC and ADGM free zones).  There are no particular requirements regarding the form or rules for those NDAs.