
Four RBC derivatives staff fined C$312,000 over wash trading
The Market Regulation Services (RS) panel decided that the four "did not engage in a pattern of manipulative or deceptive conduct [and] admitted their error to RS on being contacted".
According to the RS summary, on August 11 last year RBC and another unnamed bank agreed a hedging transaction involving shares in Bank of Montreal and RBC. The agreements allowed RBC to place buy orders for Bank of Montreal shares and sell orders for RBC, while the other bank would place the corresponding sell and buy orders. The trades were to be completed using the Toronto Stock Exchange's market-on-close facility.
However, the deal went wrong when a dealer at the other bank failed to enter his orders correctly, leaving RBC exposed. They then decided to rectify this by entering the offsetting orders themselves, producing 'wash' trades - trades which result in no change of ownership.
RS acknowledged the initial error was not theirs and that the four were acting under time pressure - their key mistake was not to contact regulators as soon as they realised the situation, RS said.
RBC was also ordered to pay C$231,500 compensation to those affected by the wash trades.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Europe’s lenders sail into uncharted waters of the banking book
Regulators are pushing banks to map their credit spread risk. Here be dragons?
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether