Example sentences of "of [v-ing] [be] [verb] [prep] be " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | This process of policy-shaping is held to be legitimate because the local state has to react to popular pressures in devising its welfare systems . |
| 2 | ( 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 . |
| 3 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 6.03 in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1989 and 12 March 1991 sent business letters relating to its investment business without bearing the legend ‘ Authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business ’ contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.02 and in that the firm at Shipley between 9 September 1988 and 1 October 1989 entered or required its Principal to enter into an association or arrangement with a person which might result in the defendant being constrained or induced to refer or introduce a client to a person who was not an independent intermediary with a view to that person giving investment advice contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.03 and in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1986 and 31 October 1989 failed before recommending or effecting for a client a transaction in units in an authorised unit trust or a recognised collective investment scheme , to take reasonable steps to establish that other more advantageous or suitable policies or units were not available contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.11 and in that the firm at Shipley between 1 November 1989 and 16 October 1991 having given advice to a client which was such that when acted upon it resulted in commission being received by the defendant , failed to notify the said client in writing of the amount and terms of such commission as soon as that information was available , contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.32 was reprimanded , fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 4 | FCA of having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he at Chertsey between 25 March 1991 and 3 September 1991 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of a limited company and a former client and in that he at Chertsey between 3 September 1991 and 3 March 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from chartered accountants in respect of a limited company and having been 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 between 13 January 1992 and 14 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 13 January 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning the affairs of a limited company was reprimanded , fined £l , 500 and ordered to pay £l , 000 by way of costs . |
| 5 | 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 . |
| 6 | 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 . |
| 7 | He is entitled to reject a nomination only if the nomination paper does not conform to requirements ( 1983 Act , sch.1 , paras.12,15 ) or if a candidate is disqualified by reason of having been ordered to be detained or imprisoned for more than one year in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland in respect of an offence or offences of which he has been found guilty ( Representation of the People Act 1981 , s.1 ) . |