Employment in Financial Services

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.

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.