Short Reads

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

License wrongly rejected by the AFM

24.10.2016 NL law

In a recent decision, the Dutch appellate court in financial supervision matters ruled that the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets wrongfully rejected a license applied for by a Dutch investment firm. 

The firm offers binary options in the Netherlands. The Dutch regulator cannot reject a license because it considers the products the firm offers undesirable for a retail audience. The judgment confirms that also in case of firms offering high risk products, the powers of the regulators to refuse a licence are limited to the grounds laid down in the applicable laws and regulations. 

The judgment of the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, the "CBb") of 4 October 2016 can be found here (in Dutch only) 

Background

Optieclub.nl B.V., a party that offers binary options, applied for a license to provide investment services in the Netherlands on 4 December 2012. Binary options are options with either a fixed payout amount or a payout amount of zero. The payout will occur when the underlying value (e.g. index, commodity, shares) moved towards the direction that is agreed upon in the option. The AFM and the Dutch Minister of Finance consider binary options as high risk products and aim for a ban on advertising for such products. The AFM even qualifies binary options as "toxic".

On 1 May 2014, the AFM rejected the license application. The AFM found that Optieclub did not comply with the requirement to maintain a sound operational management (integere bedrijfsvoering). On 16 January 2015, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled in favour of Optieclub. The AFM appealed.

The CBb judgment

The AFM found that Optieclub did not sufficiently take (i) measures to prevent itself or its employees to breach the Betting and Gambling Act (Wet op de kansspelen, the "WoK"), and/or (ii) measures to prevent Optieclub or its employees from performing acts that are contrary to generally accepted standards (maatschappelijke betamelijkheid) that can damage public confidence in Optieclub or the financial markets, since binary options – as a product – do not satisfy the requirement of safeguarding the interests of the firm´s customers.

The CBb ruled that the AFM is responsible for supervising the operation of the financial markets. The AFM has powers within this mandate to set requirements and use enforcement measures. The AFM, however, does not have powers to set requirements or use enforcement powers outside this mandate. In particular, the CBb ruled that the AFM does not have the mandate to use its powers with respect to breaches of the WoK. According to the CBb, establishing whether the WoK is breached is the task of the Netherlands Gaming Authority (Kansspelautoriteit). In this case, the Netherlands Gaming Authority did not establish that Optieclub breached the WoK. The CBb therefore ruled that as long as the breach of the WoK is not established, the AFM cannot claim that the activities of Optieclub damages the confidence in Optieclub or the financial markets.

In addition, the CBb ruled that the assessment whether Optieclub acts in breach of generally accepted standards relates to the actual market conduct of Optieclub or its employees and cannot be determined by reference to the product alone. The mere fact that Optieclub offers binary options does not justify the conclusion that Optieclub acts contrary to generally accepted standards that can damage the trust in Optieclub or the financial markets. 

Related news

15.07.2019 NL law
Minister voor Rechtsbescherming bevestigt: De Awb kent twee vormen van preventieve handhaving

Short Reads - Op 21 juni 2019 heeft de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming (de "Minister") een aantal Kamervragen beantwoord over preventieve handhaving in het bestuursrecht. Deze Kamervragen gaan over twee vormen van preventieve handhaving: (i) handhaven wanneer een overtreding dreigt en (ii) handhaven wanneer een herhaling dreigt van een eerdere overtreding. Voor het toestaan van de eerste vorm van handhaving hanteren rechters een strengere maatstaf dan voor de tweede vorm.

Read more

01.07.2019 NL law
Dutch government publishes plans to combat money laundering

Short Reads - The Dutch Minister of Finance and Minister for Justice and Security published a joint letter today (1 July 2019) that they sent to the Dutch Parliament containing plans to combat money laundering (click here to read the letter in full, in Dutch). These new plans follow recent scrutiny in the Netherlands and Europe relating to money laundering. Some of the plans are far reaching, and will lead to practical implications for our clients if these plans are transposed into Dutch law.

Read more

15.07.2019 EU law
ICO to impose record-breaking fines for inadequate security measures and data breaches

Short Reads - Though the European data protection authorities have taken their time in enforcing the GDPR, two announcements by the ICO in the UK regarding proposed fines for British Airways and Marriott demonstrate that large fines are about to start landing regularly. Both of the substantial fines are to be handed out as a result of shortcomings in handling data breaches caused by cyber-attacks.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Nieuw boetebeleid van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Short Reads - Op 14 maart 2019 zijn de nieuwe Boetebeleidsregels Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens 2019 ("Boetebeleidsregels") van de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens ("AP") gepubliceerd. Dit boetebeleid heeft de AP opgesteld vanwege de inwerkingtreding van de Algemene verordening gegevensverwerking ("AVG") en omdat er op Europees niveau nog geen boeterichtsnoeren zijn opgesteld.

Read more

21.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Data Protection Authority publishes new fining policy

Short Reads - The Dutch Data Protection Authority ("DPA") has published its new Fining policy for Administrative Fines. The new policy was drafted in response to the lack of such guidelines at the European level following the entering into force of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). In the policy, the DPA elaborates on how the amount of fines for infringements of the GDPR, the Police Data Act, the Judicial and Criminal Records Act and the Telecommunications Act will be calculated. In this blog post, we will discuss the outline of this new policy.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring