Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Deposit Takers Act 2023

Enforcement - Pecuniary penalty - Defences

160: Defences for person that contravenes prudential obligation

You could also call this:

"Breaking a money rule: when you have a good excuse"

Illustration for Deposit Takers Act 2023

If you break a rule about managing money, you might have a defence. You can say you relied on information from someone who is not part of your team. You can also say that someone else's actions or an accident caused the problem, and you did everything you could to stop it from happening.

If you use a defence, it means you might not get in trouble, but it does not change the fact that you broke the rule. You still did something wrong, even if you have a good reason for it. The defence just means you might not have to pay a penalty or get punished.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=LMS497407.

Topics:
Money and consumer rights > Banking and loansBusiness > Industry rules
Previous

159: Considerations for court, or

"What the court thinks about when making a decision about something related to the Deposit Takers Act 2023"

Next

161: Defence for person that is involved in contravention, or

"When you're involved in breaking a rule, you can explain why it's not your fault"

Part 5Enforcement
Pecuniary penalty: Defences

160Defences for person that contravenes prudential obligation

  1. This section applies to a proceeding under this subpart against A for a contravention of an applicable standard or a condition of a licence.

  2. It is a defence for A to prove that the contravention was due to reasonable reliance on information provided by another person, other than a director, an employee, or an agent of A.

  3. It is also a defence for A to prove that—

  4. the contravention was due to—
    1. the conduct of another person, other than a director, an employee, or an agent of A; or
      1. an accident or some other cause beyond the control of A and A’s directors, employees, and agents; and
      2. A took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention.

        1. A’s conduct must still be treated as contravening an applicable standard or a condition of a licence even if the conduct does not lead to any liability under this subpart because of the availability of a defence.