So, according to this standard, you must have knowledge of ALL law–in other words, ignorance is not an excuse. For instance, if you unknowingly violate an SEC regulation, you have violated Standard I(A). Am I right? Because this is the gist I’m getting from Schweser’s practice questions. Also there was another question in which it stated that an advisor worked in a country whose applicable laws were more strict than the Code and Standards, but dealt with clients in a country whose applicable laws were less strict than the Code and Standards. Note the use of the word “applicable.” That’s how it was used in the question. The question stated that for the clients in the country with the less strict law, the advisor applied the Code and Standards. Well the answer said it was a violation. Again, referring to the table in reading two, section I(A), if the member/candidate works in a more strict country, deals with clients in a less strict country, and the laws of the less strict country apply, you adhere to the code and standards. The question, however, vaguely used the words applicable and didn’t say which country’s laws overrode the other. I’d be willing to post the question if it won’t get me banned. You can tell I’m getting real sick of ethics.
gdiddy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, according to this standard, you must have > knowledge of ALL law–in other words, ignorance is > not an excuse. For instance, if you unknowingly > violate an SEC regulation, you have violated > Standard I(A). Am I right? … I don’t think so, if you unknowingly violate a regulation and make amends for it as soon you know that you are in violation then you are fine. They can’t possibly expect you to know “ALL law”. For the second one, whenever there is more strict law in the equation, then that takes preference over Code of Standards. If there is no law or less strict law, then you would abide by the code.
So am I… I just remember to apply the strict law whatsoever… I remember a question which said - if local laws are less strict, use code and standards even if the local laws say that they govern and should not be overridden! Also is there some other standard which says that we should not do anything wrong knowingly, if we dont know - that is okay!
The law is strict in saying that it should not be overridden, who allows to use the code then?
Hank0414x Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > gdiddy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So, according to this standard, you must have > > knowledge of ALL law–in other words, ignorance > is > > not an excuse. For instance, if you > unknowingly > > violate an SEC regulation, you have violated > > Standard I(A). Am I right? > > … I don’t think so, if you unknowingly violate > a regulation and make amends for it as soon you > know that you are in violation then you are fine. > They can’t possibly expect you to know “ALL law”. > > > For the second one, whenever there is more strict > law in the equation, then that takes preference > over Code of Standards. If there is no law or less > strict law, then you would abide by the code. Schweser says otherwise. There was a question which stated that if the SEC came out with a regulation, but allowed a 10-day grace period if the regulation was violated, and a member/candidate unknowingly violated that regulation but mended the situation within the grace period, they were still in violation of Standard I(A).