Free CISI UK Regulation & Professional Integrity mock exam

Not quite. The answer is B.

The PRA's insurance-specific pair is protection for policyholders and minimising the systemic damage an insurer's failure or conduct could do. Competition is the runner-up because it appears in both regulators' remits, but for the PRA it is not one of the two insurance objectives: promoting competition in the interests of consumers is an FCA operational objective.

Not quite. The answer is C.

Private warnings are used where the FCA has concerns but does not think formal disciplinary action appropriate, typically for minor matters or where full and immediate remedial action was taken. The warning forms part of the recipient's compliance history and receipt must be acknowledged. A public statement of misconduct is the formal alternative for an individual, and it brings exactly the reputational damage a private warning avoids.

Not quite. The answer is D.

Winning the argument does not stop the spotlight. The adage that all publicity is good publicity does not hold in financial services, and the cost of the attention can exceed the cost of the claim. The automatic penalty answer is the plausible one for candidates who assume enforcement follows every poor outcome, but the point being made here is about reputation rather than sanction, and no automatic right to redress arises.

Not quite. The answer is B.

An information barrier lets one part of a firm withhold information from another where at least one side carries on regulated activity, and the resulting silence is not treated as a failure of duty, nor does it expose the firm to the misleading statements or market abuse provisions. No permission is needed for that, because the barrier works by operation of the rules themselves and not by any waiver granted to the firm. The price sensitivity argument is the tempting alternative, but the plans plainly would move the price, and both desks sit inside the same bank, so treating the corporate finance side as a separate entity misdescribes the facts.

Not quite. The answer is B.

Impartial asks whether everyone affected by the action is aware of its consequences, and here they plainly are not. Informed is the strongest alternative, but that test looks at whether the decision-maker considered his stakeholders' interests before deciding; the defect in this case is that those affected were left in the dark afterwards.

Not quite. The answer is B.

Being concerned in an arrangement that the person knows or suspects facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property for another person is read widely enough to catch advising on a transaction. He is not himself disguising the property, so concealing is the weaker fit, although failing to report his suspicion would add a separate failure to disclose offence.

Not quite. The answer is D.

The two difficulties named are the small sums often required and the impossibility of pinpointing when legitimate money turns into terrorist money; the overlap with other criminal activity is drawn out alongside them. The large single transfer is the invention here. It describes the classic placement problem in laundering, which is exactly the contrast the section is making.

Not quite. The answer is B.

Three conditions must be satisfied together before the scheme pays: the person claiming must be an eligible claimant, the claim must be a protected claim, and the authorised firm must be in default. Eligibility is a test applied to the claimant rather than to the firm, so pairing a protected claim with an eligible firm both misplaces that test and drops the default condition altogether. A final response followed by a referral within six months is tempting because those steps are real, but they govern access to the ombudsman rather than entitlement to compensation, and the eight week limit for issuing that response belongs to the same complaints process.