Example sentences of "[art] [noun] [conj] having been [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Whatever we may think of the future , we think of the past as having been in its time as determinate as the present now is . |
| 2 | 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 . |
| 3 | 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 . |
| 4 | 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 . |
| 5 | 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 . |
| 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 | 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 . |
| 8 | ( 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 . |