Example sentences of "client and [v-ing] be " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | ( 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 . |
| 2 | 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 . |
| 3 | ( FCA ) of , having been found guilty of misconduct contrary to Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in Cardiff between 26 March 1991 and 4 February 1992 purported to exercise a lien over the papers of his former client when he was not entitled to do so and having been guilty of a breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Cardiff between 22 May 1991 and 4 February 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from Chartered Accountants in respect of the affairs of his former client and having been found guilty of a breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in Cardiff between 17 December 1991 and 4 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 17 December 1991 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning the affairs of his former client was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £l , 000 by way of costs . |
| 4 | ( 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 . |
| 5 | ( FCA ) of , having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Southport between 1 January 1982 and 24 May 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of a former client and in that he in Southport between 25 May 1990 and 15 August 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from registered accountants in respect of a former client and 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 he in Southport between 6 November 1991 and 29 June 1992 failed to satisfy a judgement of the County Court in the sum of £539.40 was ordered to have his Practising Certificate withdrawn with effect from 31 October 1992 and to pay £100 by way of costs . |