04/12/2019 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 04/12/2019 07:04
1 On 12 April 2019, MAS reprimanded Mr Tan Choon Wee, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and a director of a registered fund management company, Advance Capital Partners Asset Management Private Limited (ACPAM), under section 334 of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), for the following misconduct:
(a) omitting information in a capital markets services (CMS) licence application to MAS, which made the application misleading in a material respect; and/or
(b) failing to discharge his duty and function as CEO and director.
2 In July 2018, MAS had reprimanded ACPAM1, among other things, for being repeatedly late in its regulatory submissions.
3 Despite the reprimand, ACPAM continued to be late in its submissions to MAS. As the CEO and a director of ACPAM, Mr Tan was primarily responsible for ensuring that ACPAM complied with the regulatory requirements. MAS had also engaged Mr Tan directly for ACPAM's earlier breaches, and conveyed our expectations with respect to the need to strengthen ACPAM's compliance record. In addition to the failure to institute processes to prevent a recurrence, Mr Tan had reviewed and signed off on ACPAM's application to MAS for a CMS licence, which contained various omissions. These omissions, which related to ACPAM's assessment of the fitness and propriety of its directors and shareholders, made the application misleading in a material respect.
4 MAS takes a serious view of Mr Tan's lapses. MAS expects CEOs and directors to carry out the duties and functions of their offices effectively, including ensuring that financial institutions comply with regulatory requirements and providing complete and accurate information to MAS. Where appropriate, MAS has taken2, and will continue to take, regulatory action against CEOs and directors of financial institutions that fail to comply with regulatory requirements.
1 MAS has the powers under the SFA to reprimand a financial institution regulated by MAS, as well as its key officers. For avoidance of doubt, the first reprimand was issued to the financial institution.