Think we missed something? Let us know in the comment section below. Without this discount, the FCA would have imposed a financial penalty of £4.92 million. As a result, it will qualify for a 30% discount on the overall financial penalty imposed. TFS-ICAP agreed to resolve this case with the FCA. The FCA says it is grateful for the assistance provided by the United States financial regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in this investigation. The market should also take notice that the opacity of such practices, while forensically challenging, is no bar to action either.’ TFS-ICAP agreed to resolve matters with the FCA ‘This market should take notice that printing, or providing information to clients where the basis for the information is not true, is not in keeping with appropriate standards of market conduct. TFS-ICAP also had shortcomings in its oversight and compliance arrangements to detect and counter the risk of brokers providing price or quantity information on the basis that it was based on actual trades when these had not taken place.Ĭommenting on the case, the Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight, Mark Steward said: Neither were there any records to evidence the practice which, in turn, meant the investigation had to establish the existence of a practice that was opaque and unrecorded in any of TFS-ICAP’s records. Note: This exemption does not exempt TFS-ICAP from the requirement to hold an.
Both Jeremy Woolfendent and Ian Dibb had been declared accountable thanks to their failure in supervision. Alongside this, the interdealer broker’s London and New York entities alike had failed to properly communicate to their clients that these trades were executed on their behalf.Īside from the companies themselves, the Court held two individuals accountable for the actions as well.
The truth, however, was that there were no other offered options or bids from counterparties at such a level. Found Guilty Of Printing TradesĪs the CFTC had detailed, TFS ICAP had, between the time of January of 2014 and August of 2015, represented its bank clients with offers or bids for various FX options at a specific level. The interdealer broker had already admitted that its employees were involved in misconducts known as “printing trades” or “flying prices,” with the judgment coming shortly after this admittance. The two entities have been fighting a legal battle for a long time since, as a result. TFS-ICAP LLC and TFS-ICAP Ltd had both been dragged to the Southern District Court of New York by none other than the US watchdog, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC. The fine pertained to accusations of client deception and major market misconduct. The first entity is based in the state itself, New York, with the other being based in London, the UK. TFS-ICAP stands as a forex options broker, and has been hit with a hefty $7 million fine against two of its entities by the District Court of New York.