The case

After the first part What this toolbox ought to include and the second part on Who will be affected by the wave of regulations? as well as the third part Better governance, at least for SIBs, the forth part Bonus rules? – at least with regard to systemically important banks (SIBs), the fifth part on a Senior Manager’s Regime and part six on Whistle-blower protection, part seven on the Refinement of the Industry ban and Disgorgement rules, part eight on the proposed In-Depth Warranty Check, part nine on the proposed Information Obligation for Employees, Prof. Dr Urs Zulauf expresses his considerations in part ten on the question of More Transparency on Procedures?

The commentary

FINMA, the Federal Council as well as CS PUK would like to see more public information about FINMA’s enforcement proceedings, at least in cases against SIBs. This information should include the names of the companies concerned and, whenever possible, the individuals involved, and this practice should be established and not only be applied in exceptional cases, as is the current practice.

At the same time it is important to point out that the impression created is incorrect: FINMA has already provided information about proceedings against banks in media releases quite frequently though it must be added that the increasing delay in providing information with the help of the courts is less than satisfactory. So even if regulation is unlikely to have a dramatic effect, it seems appropriate and it ought to be applicable to all areas of supervision, not only SIBs.

FINMA ought to continue to make all its enforcement decisions publicly available but should indicate the name of the institutions in every single case though the names of individuals should not be disclosed. In addition to this, FINMA should keep up its current practice of issuing press releases in cases that are of significant public interest. The only remedy available would then be a subsequent appeal.