The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA 2018) sets out the UK’s framework for the implementation and enforcement of international sanctions. Introduced post-Brexit, SAMLA 2018’s purpose is to facilitate the UK's continued compliance with international law, while ensuring the UK has flexibility to swiftly adopt or amend sanctions. SAMLA 2018 empowers the Secretary of State to introduce sanctions regimes through secondary legislation, or Statutory Instruments (SIs). As a result, the substantive content of the UK’s sanctions regimes is vested in the SIs, specifically in regulations that are country-specific or thematic, rather than SAMLA 2018. SAMLA 2018 also makes provision for regulations to be made on the enforcement of any prohibition or requirement imposed by a regulation. See Practice Notes: The UK sanctions framework under SAMLA 2018 and UK sanctions regimes currently in force. Regulations made under SAMLA 2018: • impose prescribed types of prohibitions or requirements, or ‘sanctions’, in relation to designated individuals or entities, for the one of the purposes listed in SAMLA 2018, s 2(1)

Question Correct answer 1. What are financial sanctions? Restrictions on dealings in money and the provision of financial services 2. All sanctions in the UK are implemented through which of the following statutory instruments and primary legislation? (tick all that apply) Counter-Terrorism Act 2008Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 3. If you have knowledge

How to use this test These questions are designed to test your understanding following your attendance at our training on financial sanctions. After you have completed this test, please return it to [insert name]. General Name of person completing test: [Insert name] Role: [Insert role] Date: [Insert date] Multiple choice questions Tick the correct answer. Question Multiple choice answers 1. What are financial sanctions? □ Restrictions on dealings in money and the provision of financial services□ Restrictions on import and export of goods□ Restrictions on travel into and out of the

This Practice Note considers the implications of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) being within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIA 2000). It supplements general notes on freedom of information and does not contain detailed information on FIA 2000 requests or responses. Specifically, this Practice Note considers issues for firms where the regulators could disclose information which a firm considers to be commercially sensitive or confidential. For further information, see Lexis+® UK IP and IT Practice Notes: Compliance with a freedom of information request, Absolute exemptions to a freedom of information request and Freedom of information request—flowchart. The regulators and FIA 2000 For the purposes of FIA 2000, the PRA and the FCA are designated as public authorities, which means the public can make requests to either or both regulators for disclosure of the recorded information they keep. Information on the FCA's policies and procedures on FIA requests can be found on the FCA's website and includes: • the FCA's publication scheme guide

What is judicial review? Judicial review is the procedure by which courts in England and Wales examine the decisions of government ministers and departments, industry regulators, local authorities and public bodies to ensure that they act lawfully and fairly. In deciding whether a particular body is a 'public body' for the purposes of judicial review, the court considers the functions that it performs and whether those functions have public law consequences. The court conducts a review of the process by which a public body has reached a decision to assess whether it was validly made. The court’s authority to do this derives from statute, but the principles of judicial review are based on case law which is continually evolving. A court may refuse permission to bring a claim for judicial review if an alternative remedy has not been pursued. Judicial review is a remedy of last resort. Currently, the grounds for judicial review of a decision made by a public body can be categorised under four heads: • illegality • irrationality (the so called 'Wednesbury

It is unusual for the SRA to make rules that limit the fees law firms can charge. However, the SRA is required by the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 (FGCA 2018) to make rules that prevent the charging of excessive fees for claims management activities connected to financial products or services. The SRA has discharged this statutory obligation via the SRA Claims Management Fees Rules (the Rules). The Rules also impose detailed information requirements. The SRA has produced guidance on Claims management activity and Representing clients during claims for financial services or products. The Rules apply to firms or individuals regulated by the SRA who provide: • relevant financial services claims management (FSCM) activities or • activities that would be regulated FSCM activities but for the exclusion in article 89N of the Regulated Activities Order Relevant FSCM activities is a defined term—see SRA glossary. The remainder of this Practice Note assumes you are providing relevant FSCM activities and that you understand the concept of a fee, which is also a defined

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to financial services compliance in Malta published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: August 2021). Authors: Fenech & Fenech Advocates—Josianne Brimmer 1. What national authorities regulate the provision of financial products and services? The Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) is the single financial services regulator in Malta, charged with both the authorisation and ongoing supervision of operators within the whole spectrum of financial services. The MFSA regulates credit institutions, financial institutions (eg, payment service providers and e-money institutions), investment services providers (eg, Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2014/65/E (MiFID) firms), collective investment schemes, trustees, fiduciaries and corporate services providers. The MFSA has entered into several memoranda of understanding with local regulatory or semi-regulatory authorities for the purposes of establishing a framework for cooperation, mutual assistance and exchange of information, intended to facilitate them in the discharge of their respective duties. The memoranda are in place between the MFSA and the Malta Business Registry, the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations,

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to financial services compliance in Portugal published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: August 2021). Authors: Uría Menéndez—Miguel Stokes; Bruno Silva Palhão 1. What national authorities regulate the provision of financial products and services? In Portugal, the financial sector is supervised and regulated in line with the specialised or institutional model, according to which each of the banking, insurance and securities markets are supervised and regulated by a specialist institution, as opposed to the 'twin peaks' system. The Bank of Portugal supervises credit institutions (including banks), financial companies, payment institutions, electronic money institutions offering retail banking products and services, and credit intermediaries. The Securities Commission (CMVM) regulates the markets in financial instruments, as well as the entities that act therein and the undertakings for collective investments. Lastly, the Supervisory Authority for Insurance and Pension Funds (ASF) regulates insurance and reinsurance companies, pension funds and their management companies, as well as insurance mediation. The regulation of the provision of financial

Financial services firms and insolvency provisions in FSMA 2000 The provisions in Part XXIV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) allow the regulators to be involved in insolvency related proceedings against firms and individuals. These rights arise both in respect of authorised firms and recognised investment exchanges, as well as those conducting regulated activities in contravention of the general prohibition (FSMA 2000, ss 19–20). Each section in Pt XXIV indicates the parameters as to when rights accrue, in some cases rights accrue to more than one regulator. Seeking insolvency orders is an important process for the regulators, particularly against firms carrying out unauthorised business. Insolvency proceedings are used against insolvent firms and individuals as well as those which are not technically insolvent but where it would be just and equitable for the firm to cease business. The sections in FSMA 2000 should be considered together with the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, including the special resolution regime under the Banking Act 2009 (BA 2009)—for information,

This Practice Note provides an introduction to reliance by financial services firms on legal obligation or legitimate interest as a lawful ground for processing personal data under Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK General Data Protection Regulation or UK GDPR). For general information on UK GDPR, see Practice Notes: • The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), and • The Data Protection Act 2018 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published guidance to the UK GDPR which is available here. Note that the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025 and came partly into force on that date. The majority of the provisions of DUAA 2025 require secondary legislation to be made in order to come into force. For information on the commencement of DUAA 2025, see Practice Note: The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. This Practice Note includes relevant changes to UK GDPR made by DUAA 2025. Lawful grounds for data processing under UK GDPR—summary for

MLex: The UK minister responsible for financial services told members of the industry that the government wants to reset the relationship with the EU. 'We've got to have a good relationship with them if we want our financial services to grow', Tulip Siddiq said.

This Practice Note contains a jurisdiction-specific Q&A guide to financial services litigation in Greece published as part of the Lexology Getting the Deal Through series by Law Business Research (published: October 2021). Authors: Souriadakis Tsibris—Giannis Koumettis; Michael Tsibris 1. What are the most common causes of action brought against banks and other financial services providers by their customers? Greek law recognises two main causes of liability: tort and contractual. Contractual liability arises from breach of contract, whereas tort liability arises from a breach of statute obligations. The existence of an agreement between two parties does not exclude the possible parallel existence of tort liability of one party to the agreement towards the other. Supreme Court Decision No. 1028/2015 found that the criterion for tort liability to apply despite the existence of a contract is whether the behaviour of one party towards the other would also establish tort liability even if there was no agreement between them. In that case, the plaintiff may choose between the two legal bases to bring an action against his or her counterparty,