Example sentences of "[to-vb] [noun] by [noun sg] of [noun pl] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Harry had eaten a square of the chocolate and somehow felt bound to answer questions by way of thanks . |
| 2 | These centred on Eighth Army 's dealings with the Yugoslavs , including their inability " to exercise authority by force of arms " . |
| 3 | The speech indicated that the Khmers Rouges had abandoned plans to seize power by force of arms , and were directing their efforts to improving their image in the countryside . |
| 4 | Richard Anthony Ainscough FCA , Michael George Battersby FCA , David Peter Bradley ACA , Ralph Burton Holden FCA , Donald Malcolm Lyon ACA , Brian Christopher Marsden FCA , Michael Harvey Townend FCA and Jeremy Newsom Stirrup FCA , all of Oakmount , 6 East Park Road , Blackburn who were found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they in Blackburn between 20 April 1991 and 7 September 1991 passed clients ' monies through the firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally fined £750 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 5 | John David Berman FCA of PO Box 1495 , 141 High Street , Barnet , Herts who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Barnet between 31 March 1990 and 1 May 1990 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 6 | Charles Henry Lovell FCA and David Ian Whalley FCA both of Royal House , Market Place , Redditch , Worcs having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Redditch between 27 January 1991 and 19 July 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 7 | ( FCA ) of having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in the Magistrates Court was convicted of eight offences of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of Value Added Tax contrary to Section 39(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 8 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Peterborough between 21 June 1991 and 1 October 1991 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £l , 000 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 9 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in High Wycombe between 31 March 1989 and 14 June 1991 it failed to notify clients in writing of the amount and terms of commission received as a result of advice given to those clients and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 5.03 in that in High Wycombe between 31 March 1989 and 14 June 1991 it failed to give notice to its Bank that all money standing to the credit of its Investment Business Client Bank Account was to be held by the firm as a trustee or agent within the terms of the regulation was reprimanded , fined £l , 000 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 10 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that between 6 July 1983 and 9 September 1991 when joint liquidator of a limited company failed timeously to submit accounts to Companies House was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 11 | ( FCA ) of having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in the Crown Court on 30 April 1992 was indicted and on his plea of guilty convicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud a limited company was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 12 | ACA ACA and FCA all of who were found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Stockport between 1 February 1991 and 31 October 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 13 | ACA , FCA ACA and FCA all of all of Bridge House , Heap Bridge , Bury , Lancs who were found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Bury between 7 August 1991 and 8 September 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 14 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 15 | FCA and FCA all of who were found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Hoylake on or about 17 September 1990 passed client 's money through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 16 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulations 1.16(a) and 1.17 in that in Grimsby between 30 September 1990 and 1 October 1991 the firm handled Investment Business Clients ' monies when not authorised to do so was reprimanded and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 17 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1992 , before recommending or effecting for clients transactions relating to investment , the firm failed to give adequate risk warnings to those clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to send engagement letters and agree them with clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to keep proper client records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 18 | Roger William Peters FCA of 433-437 Great West Road , Hounslow , Middx having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(d) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that at Slough on or about 23 April 1991 an Interim Order was made in respect of his affairs under Section 252 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was reprimanded , had his Practising Certificate withdrawn and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 19 | Krishna Kumar Rawal ACA of 74A High Street , Wanstead , London having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Ilford and Wanstead between 18 November 1987 and 1 April 1990 failed to account properly and promptly for monies held on behalf of a client and in that he at Wanstead between 18 November 1987 and 6 January 1992 failed to account properly and promptly to a client for interest received in respect of monies held on behalf of the said client and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he at Wanstead between 3 December 1991 and 18 June 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) was reprimanded , fined £1,000 , ordered to take advice from the Professional Referrals Service and to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 20 | Philip James Cattlin ( ACA ) of 97 Judd Street , London having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in London between 17 March 1992 and 15 September 1992 being sole proprietor of a firm of Chartered Accountants , failed to cause that firm to comply with an order of the Disciplinary Committee made on 17 March 1992 that it pay costs in the sum of £500 and having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in London between 14 August 1992 and 15 September 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 14 August 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) and in that he in London between 19 May 1992 and 4 August 1992 failed to satisfy a judgment of the County Court that he pay a sum of £5,634 and having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in London between 7 January 1992 and 4 August 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning a judgment of the County Court was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 21 | Peter Adrian Clark ( FCA ) of 62 Grosvenor Road , Aldershot , Hants having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Aldershot between 5 November 1990 and 27 January 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of an estate and in that he in Aldershot between 28 January 1992 and 30 June 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from Solicitors in respect of an estate and having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in Aldershot between 5 May 1992 and 30 June 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 5 May 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning an estate and having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Aldershot between 20 March 1992 and 1 September 1992 failed to deal properly with enquiries from a bank and having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in Aldershot between 25 June 1992 and 1 September 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 25 June 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 22 | John Anthony Lane FCA of Far Hills , Grove Road , Tring , Herts having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Leighton Buzzard between 13 July 1990 and 20 August 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from Chartered Accountants and having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(c) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in Leighton Buzzard between 17 October 1991 and 7 November 1991 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 17 October 1991 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning professional enquiries from Chartered Accountants was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 23 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in London between 31 July 1985 and 28 February 1990 audited the accounts of a limited company , a company in which his wife was a shareholder and at various times an office holder , resulting in him not being free of any interest which might detract or be seen to detract from his professional independence and integrity was reprimanded and ordered to pay £600 by way of costs . |
| 24 | Brian Groom FCA of The Shrubbery , Burghfield Bridge , Reading , Berks having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that he at Reading between 24 January 1992 and 30 July 1992 failed to satisfy a judgment of the County Court was reprimanded , fined £500 to be paid by 20 January 1993 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 25 | Annachamy Ganesh Aiyer FCA of 9 Cardiff Road , Luton , Beds having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Luton between 8 January 1991 and 21 June 1991 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 26 | Michael William Beecheno ( ACA ) of 2 Tummons Gardens , South Norwood Hill , London having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that in London between 11 March 1991 and 14 March 1991 he improperly suggested that charges to his employers for temporary staff be increased and the additional sums be paid to him under the guise of consultancy fees was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 27 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in London between 8 November 1990 and 3 March 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from chartered accountants in respect of a client and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in London between 7 January 1992 and 3 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 7 January 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning professional enquiries made by chartered accountants was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 28 | ( ACA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Iver , on or about 16 August 1991 , drafted a letter to be signed ‘ ( ACA ) ’ and permitted its use in circumstances which were not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 29 | was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 30 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Waltham Cross on or about 28 May 1991 drafted a letter of resignation as auditor of a limited company on behalf of his firm in terms not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |