The origin of the action hinges on the Financial Advisors Act (FAA), which the MAS asserts was not properly followed by JPMorgan Chase.
Legal Risk Factor Beneath Ripple’s Lawsuit from SECGo to article >>
The announcement cites a section of the manifest, which according to an official statement from the MAS, “stipulates that a principal shall not permit any individual to provide any type of financial advisory service on its behalf unless the individual is an appointed or provisional representative in respect of that type of financial advisory service. Section 99B(3)(a) of the SFA stipulates that a principal shall not permit any individual to carry on business in any type of regulated activity on its behalf unless the individual is an appointed, provisional or temporary representative in respect of that type of regulated activity.”
JPMorgan had effectively permitted two representatives in Singapore who were not appointed or provisional representatives to provide the financial advisory service of advising others. The MAS report cites a period from November 26, 2010 to January 16, 2013.
The order is essentially a warning against JPMorgan that if left unchanged could result in additional action. JPMorgan has faced numerous brushes with worldwide regulators in 2014, which as recently as November included fines for FX abuse.