Example sentences of "and [v-ing] been [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | All golf and gin and bridge and cars and the right accent and the right money and having been to the right school and hating the arts ( the theatre being a pantomime at Christmas and ‘ Hay Fever ’ by the Town Rep Picasso and Bartók dirty words unless you wanted to get a laugh ) . |
| 2 | She was very young , 18 or 19 , and relatively immature although much more worldly wise than I was because she had lived a much more international sort of life , and having been around the music scene a lot more than I had , she was streetwise at her age to a greater degree than I — there was no question of that . |
| 3 | For twenty years she saved up her money for the ‘ round trip ’ , and having been round the world , is now full of memories . |
| 4 | 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 . |
| 5 | ( 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 . |
| 6 | 5. of , a firm having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.50 in that in Stockbridge between 1 June 1991 and 3 March 1992 the firm failed to pay its Investment Business Authorisation Fee for the year ending 31 December 1991 and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) as applied by Investment Business Regulation 6.09 in that the firm at Stockbridge between 19 December 1991 and 28 January 1992 failed to provide information required of it by the Investigation Committee on 19 December 1991 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning the payment of its Investment Business Authorisation Fee for the year ending 31 December 1991 was reprimanded and ordered to pay £l , 000 by way of costs . |
| 7 | ( 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 . |
| 8 | 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 . |
| 9 | 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 . |
| 10 | 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 . |
| 11 | 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 . |
| 12 | 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 . |
| 13 | 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 . |
| 14 | 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 . |