Four RBC derivatives staff fined C$312,000 over wash trading
Canadian regulators have fined four senior employees of RBC Dominion Securities a total of C$312,000 ($250,000) for 'wash trading' in shares of RBC and Bank of Montreal.
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.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
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. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma denies need for new competitiveness mandate
MEP wants explicit requirement; Esma official says it’s already covered in existing rulebook
US regulators cut FRTB’s IMA capital hit by 59%, Isda finds
Trade body pushes for further changes to cross-product netting, default risk charge
US FRTB glitch could spit out negative capital charges
Effort to recognise risk diversification between IMA and standardised approach went too far
Euronext, LCH back Esma as exchange super-regulator
National oversight hurts Europe, exchange officials say – but some are not ready to accept a single watchdog
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive