In connection with media reports and statements of some lawyers and lobbyists suggest that the entry into force of the Regulation MAR on market abuse (Market Abuse Regulation) has led to the abolition of the criminal records of some of the acts listed in the Act on trading in financial instruments, UKNF draws attention to the its website that a possible collision Polish legislation with the provisions of Regulation MAR does not mean that the Polish regulations are repealed.
“What most limited is the scope of a particular provision in the facts,” we read in the PFSA. Office told PAP on Tuesday that the final wording refers to a situation where the facts standardized are two categories of legislation – both EU and Polish. In this case, should be carefully examine the scope of standardization of both provisions, it may happen that the provisions of seemingly similar, do not cover the ranges. for example. EU regulation regulates the issue on the need for a definition of administrative responsibilities and Polish laws regulate the issue on the need for a penal sanction. In such a situation there is no collision, the application will find the two provisions.
In case if it turned out that the scope of standardization overlap, it is essential that the provisions of the Regulation of the EU and Polish Act regulate the duties of the data in a different way. In the case of convergent regulation collision problem ceases to exist de facto, for fulfilling the obligations of the regulation is at the same time fulfilling the obligations of the Act. For such a situation occurs mostly in the case of MAR regulation and the Act on trading in financial instruments in regulating the dot. Confidential information.
In terms of sanctioning Regulation MAR, PFSA notes that the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2014/57 / EU of 16 April 2014. on criminal sanctions for market abuse ( “the Directive MAD II”) was adopted on the basis of art. 83 paragraph. 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
According to that provision, if the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States in criminal matters proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been the subject of harmonizing directives may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offenses and sanctions in the area. Establishing minimum standards does not exclude the jurisdiction of a Member State to adopt other solutions or additional penalties.
could raise doubts as to why the regulation MAR UKNF refers to Article 83 of the Treaty, which is the basis of the Directive MAD II. MAR Regulation establishes a series of do’s and don’ts to be followed by supervised entities, informs UKNF PAP. In order to ensure compliance with the above standards of the European Union legislature has imposed on the Member States to sanction infringements MAR either by administrative law and criminal. MAD II Directive sets minimum requirements for criminal sanctions for infringement of certain obligations imposed by Regulation MAR. In turn, the administrative sanctions for breach of Regulation MAR are provided for in the Regulation. Therefore PFSA – speaking of sanction regulation MAR, on the basis of criminal laws, refers to Directive MAD II.
As a consequence, this means that the penal provisions of the Act of 29 July 2005. On trading in financial instruments and Act of 29 July 2005. on public Offering, conditions Governing the introduction of financial instruments to Organised trading, and public companies (hereinafter the “Act on public Offering”) remain in force and may give rise to the imposition of a fine on an entity that violates these standards.
in other words, the entry into force of the provisions of Regulation MAR and MAD II Directive requires Member States to spenalizowania behavior referred to in the above-mentioned acts. There is however an obstacle to adopt their own additional solutions penalties. The entry into force of the regulation MAR and directives MAD II did not lead to the decriminalization, on the contrary expanded range of acts constituting a violation of the law, we read in the PFSA.
Regulation MAR enacted April 16, 2014 r., And some of its provisions entered into force on 2 July 2014. however, in relation to the most relevant provisions introduced a two-year application period to 3 July., to give issuers sufficient time to adapt to the new rules.
the most important changes introduced by the Regulation MAR are related to, among others, the extension of the responsibilities for reporting transactions in financial instruments by members of the corporate bodies and persons associated with them, the extension of remaining legislation on market abuse with abuse of alternative trading systems or brokerage platforms-matching, banning the use of lead to fraud strategy implemented using high-frequency trading – electronic transaction carried out with the help of computer algorithms. (PAP)
No comments:
Post a Comment