Bridging the Week by Gary DeWaal


Bridging the Week by Gary DeWaal: August 14 to 18 and August 21, 2017 (Wash Trades; Spoofing; Bank Capital; Virtual Currency Businesses)

Bitcoin Ecosystem    Bridging the Week    Capital and Liquidity    Compliance Weeds    Customer Protection    Introducing Brokers    Legal Weeds    Managed Money    My View    Trade Practices (including Disruptive Trading)   
Published Date: August 20, 2017

A non-US-based commodity firm that allegedly tried to square up its books at month-end by placing matched buys and sells on a US futures exchange was charged with wash trading by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At the time – on or after first notice day in the relevant delivery month – the firm was precluded from transferring trades through book entry transfer transactions because of exchange rules. And last month an organization renowned for drafting model state laws approved a statutory framework for state regulation of persons engaged in a virtual currency business. As a result, the following matters are covered in this week’s edition of Bridging the Week:

  • Non-US Commodity Firm Settles CFTC Allegations of Wash Trading for US $300,000 Fine (includes Compliance Weeds);
  • Former Floor Broker Agrees to US $200,000 Fine to Resolve ICE Futures U.S. Spoofing Allegations (includes Compliance Weeds);
  • Banking Regulators Give Capital Break for Cleared Derivatives;
  • Model State Law Regarding Virtual Currency Businesses Virtually Finalized (includes Legal Weeds and My View) and more.

Video Version:

Article Version:

Briefly:

  • Non-US Commodity Firm Settles CFTC Allegations of Wash Trading for US $300,000 Fine: Copersucar Trading A.V.V., an Aruban corporation that engages in the import and export of sugar and related hedging activities, consented to a fine of US $300,000 to resolve allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that it engaged in prohibited wash sales on “multiple occasions” from April 2013 through September 2014. According to the CFTC, these transactions allegedly involved Sugar No. 11 futures contracts traded on ICE Futures U.S. The CFTC claimed that Copersucar engaged in these prohibited transactions to transfer positions between various accounts owned by the firm to satisfy its month-end “book squaring” needs. Ordinarily the firm would effectuate its transfers through back office transactions as permitted by exchange rules, said the CFTC. However, when the firm was prohibited from making such transfers by IFUS rules – on or after first notice date – it would effectuate the transfers by placing orders for equal and opposite positions “in a riskless fashion” in the marketplace, noted the Commission.

Compliance Weeds: On IFUS, traders may transfer positions between accounts where no change in beneficial ownership is involved and under certain other limited circumstances. However, transfer trades that offset positions in the spot month may not occur on or after the first notice day of the delivery month. Potentially offsetting long and short positions held by the same beneficial owner on or after the first notice day may only be closed out by transactions executed in the market; privately negotiated transactions such as an exchange for related position; or satisfied through the normal delivery process. However, positions may be transferred during this prohibited time period for offset if the trade date of the transferred position is the same as the transfer date. Transfers of futures, when authorized, may be done at the original market price, prior day’s settlement price or current day’s settlement price. Options may be transferred at original market premium or a premium of zero. (Click here to access IFUS Rule 4.37.) Wash trades on IFUS occur “when there is an act of entering into, or purporting to enter into, transactions with no intent to obtain a bona fide market position or activity that gives the false appearance of an executed transaction(s), but does not subject the Principal to any market risk or change in position or aid in price discovery.” On IFUS, anyone who initiates, places, accepts or accommodates a transaction that he/she “knew or should have known” would result in a wash trade potentially violates the exchange’s prohibition against wash trades. This could include brokers that accept and execute a wash trade for a customer. (Click here for back in IFUS Wash Trade FAQ – February 2016.)

  • Former Floor Broker Agrees to US $200,000 Fine to Resolve ICE Futures U.S. Spoofing Allegations: Dominick Minervini, a former floor broker registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, agreed to pay a fine of US $200,000 to ICE Futures U.S. to resolve charges that, between April 2016 and August 2016, he may have engaged in impermissible spoofing-type activity involving Sugar No. 11 futures contracts. According to IFUS, Mr. Minervini, on numerous occasions, created “order book imbalances” by entering a small order to buy or sell on one side of the market, and a large order to sell or buy on the other side of the market. The exchange claimed that on “numerous instances” Mr. Minervini would cancel the large order after the small order was executed. In addition to paying a fine to resolve this matter, Mr. Minervini agreed to disgorge profits in excess of US $17,500 and be suspended from trading on IFUS markets for 150 days. In 2009, Mr. Minervini agreed to pay a fine of US $150,000 to IFUS for allegedly engaging in wash trades and attempting to manipulate the price of Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice futures settlement prices on nine occasions (click here for background), while in 2010, Mr. Minervini consented to pay a sanction of US $85,000 to the exchange for purportedly engaging in wash trades and accommodation trades in 120 incidents (click here for background).

Compliance Weeds: This appears to be an unusual case where a person charged under an anti-spoofing provision was alleged, on each occasion, to have placed only a single large order on the opposite side of a market from a small order. Apparently, as intimated by IFUS’s Disciplinary Notice, the order book imbalances caused by the single large and one opposite small orders were sufficient to induce execution of the small orders. Previous enforcement actions alleging spoofing typically have involved multiple layered orders on one side of the market used to cause an artificial increase or decrease in prices in order to facilitate the execution of a single smaller order on the other side. (Click here for a background on a more conventional enforcement action involving spoofing in the article “Federal Appeals Court Upholds Conviction and Sentencing of First Person Criminally Charged for Spoofing Under Dodd-Frank Prohibition” in the August 8, 2017 edition of Between Bridges.)

  • Banking Regulators Give Capital Break for Cleared Derivatives: Three US banking regulators determined that banks could avoid severe capital charges when entering into cleared derivatives transactions by treating variation margin payments as settlement payments as opposed to collateral payments, provided exchange rules authorized such treatment. Such rules would enable banks to regard each derivatives contract as having no outstanding exposure on a cleared contract after a variation margin payment is made, until the next exchange of variation margin (i.e., the next business day). This substantially reduces a bank’s theoretical future exposure on the contract, reducing its capital charges (the measure of future exposure is dependent on the type of contract and its remaining maturity). The three banking regulators making this determination were the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Surprisingly, Thomas M. Hoenig, FDIC Vice Chairman, issued a statement criticizing this determination claiming, “The guidance effectively lowers the amount of capital required for certain derivatives contracts although the underlying economics of the transactions do not change.” (Click here to access Mr. Hoenig’s statement.)

More briefly:

  • Federal Appeals Court Rules in Favor of FCM Seeking Return of Customer Assets From Sentinel Management Ruins: The US Court of Appeals sitting in Chicago ruled that FCStone, LLC and other customers who initially posted funds in a segregated customer account at Sentinel Management Group were entitled to recover their funds on a priority basis after their funds were improperly commingled by the defunct money manager with other customer funds. At the relevant time, Sentinel Management was registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant and with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Investment Adviser. In its decision, the court quoted from the amicus brief filed by the Futures Industry Association that had argued that any other outcome would open the door for “non-futures claimants in future FCM bankruptcies to litigate the rights to futures margin account property, creating perilous delay and rendering unpredictable the return of futures customers’ assets.” (Click here for background regarding Sentinel Management in the article “Sentinel Management Former CEO Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison for Fraud; Former Head Trader Receives Eight-Year Term” in the February 1, 2015 edition of Bridging the Week.)
     
  • Investment Adviser CCO Fined and Suspended for One Year for Firm’s Alleged Misleading Registration Filing: To resolve an enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, David Osunkwo, a principal of the consulting firm SC Consulting and former chief compliance officer for two formerly affiliated investment advisers (IAs) – Aegis Capital and Circle One – agreed to pay a fine of US $30,000 for causing Circle One to file an amended Form ADV with the SEC in April 2011 that purportedly contained inaccurate information. (Mr. Osunkwo served as CCO of the two investment advisers on a rent-a-CCO basis; the two IAs apparently merged in 2010.) According to the SEC, Circle One’s Form ADV overstated its amount under management and total client accounts. The SEC claimed that Mr. Osunkwo was responsible for this error because he completed the Form ADV based on information provided in writing to him by the chief investment officer “without taking sufficient steps to ascertain [its] accuracy.” As part of his settlement, Mr. Osunkwo also agreed not to associate with any SEC registrant for 12 months, among other sanctions.
     
  • NFA Bars Former Broker From Membership for Unauthorized Trading and Transferring Winning Trades From Customers to Himself: Christian Mayer, a former associated person of Northstar Commodity Investment Co., a registered introducing broker (IB), agreed never to apply for associate membership or principal status with the National Futures Association to resolve administrative charges brought by NFA that, from 2014 through 2016, he transferred profitable trades from two customer accounts to his own account while leaving losing trades in his customer accounts. Mr. Mayer transferred positions after engaging in 186 unauthorized day trades for the two customer accounts, charged the NFA. The NFA alleged that, in total, Mr. Mayer transferred from the two customers in excess of US $38,000 in profitable trades and left in excess of $66,000 in losing trades. After Mr. Mayer’s employer discovered his wrongful conduct, Mr. Mayer paid the IB US $150,000. Most of this amount was then paid to the two customers.
     
  • CME Group Clearing House Proposes to Eliminate Mandatory Guaranty From All Five-Percent or More Shareholders: The CME Group Clearing House proposed to eliminate an existing clearing house rule that requires a parent guarantee under certain circumstances. According to CME Group, this rule was adopted to encourage clearing members to better supervise house trading. However, because of improvements in risk management technology and risk management rules, the Clearing House no longer considers a guarantee necessary. The Clearing House’s amended rule is expected to be effective September 1.
     
  • ICE Futures U.S. Proposes to Amend Disruptive Trading Guidance to Clarify That Certain User-Defined Strategies Are Prohibited: ICE Futures U.S. proposes a change to its Disruptive Trading Practices FAQs to make clear that it would regard as prohibited disruptive trading the placement of an order to transact against a covered options strategy in connection with a user-defined strategy that is intentionally purposed to cause an amount of futures contracts to be executed greater or less than the expected hedge. IFUS’s proposed guidance amendment is scheduled to be effective August 29.
     
  • SEC Agrees to Dismissal of All Charges Against Alleged Key Players in London Whale Incident: The Securities and Exchange Commission agreed to dismiss all  civil charges against Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, two former employees of JP Morgan Chase & Co. that the SEC had charged in 2013 with mismarking "hundreds of positions" in credit default swaps in 2012 that contributed to the firm's loss of over US $5.8 billion – the so-called “London Whale” incident (click here for details). Recently, the US Attorney's Office in NYC announced it too had dropped all criminal charges against the same two individuals related to the same matter. (Click here for details in the article "Use in US Trial of Testimony Compelled From Two LIBOR Traders in the UK Tanks Their US Conviction for Manipulation; Criminal Charges Dropped Against Two Traders in London Whale Related Prosecution" in the July 23, 2017 edition of Bridging the Week.)

And finally:

  • Model State Law Regarding Virtual Currency Businesses Virtually Finalized:

In mid-July a model law for the regulation of virtual currency businesses was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (ULC) for potential adoption by each of the states of the United States.

The model law – known as the Uniform Regulation of Virtual Currency Business Act (VCBA) – proposes the regulation of all persons engaged in a “virtual currency business activity” absent an exemption. Among other things, such activity includes exchanging, transferring or storing virtual currency with or on behalf of residents. Under the VCBA, virtual currency is any digital representation of value that is used as a medium of exchange, unit of account or store of value and does not constitute legal tender.

The proposed law would not apply to transactions subject to certain federal laws (e.g., the Securities Exchange Act or the Commodity Exchange Act) or to activity by certain persons. These persons include (1) banks; (2) persons engaged in money transmission and already licensed by the relevant state, authorized to engage in virtual currency business activity, and compliant with certain specifically enumerated requirements of the VCBA; (3) persons that use virtual currency solely for their own behalf, including investing and buying and selling; and (4) regulated securities or commodities intermediaries that do not engage “in the ordinary course of business” in virtual currency business activities with residents, among others.

Persons engaging in business with residents whose volume of virtual currency business exceeds US $35,000 annually must have a license issued under the VCBA. A lesser registration requirement is proposed for persons whose volume of virtual currency business with residents is US $35,000 or less annually but more than US $5,000. However, the requirements to qualify as a registrant are not significantly less than as a licensee.

Potential licensees must complete an application containing a host of specific information required about the licensee itself and each control person, as well as evidence of a minimum net worth and reserves that a state may require (but anticipated not to be less that US $25,000), and other documents. Required documents and information include, for example, (1) a description of the five-year business history of the applicant including its website addresses and social media pages; (2) a list (including address and telephone number) of each person the applicant intends to use to conduct its regulated business; and (3) a set of fingerprints for each of the registrant's executive officers and relevant managers. Before a license is granted, a licensee must post a surety bond or other security satisfactory to the state in an amount determined by the state to secure "the licensee's faithful performance of its duties" under the VCBA.

Applicants for licenses agree that the relevant state department may conduct an investigation into the applicant's financial resources and other matters, including the "competence, experience, character and general fitness" of each executive officer and relevant manager, and also consent to pay the "reasonable costs" of such investigation.

Proposed licensees and registrants must prepare and, once granted their status, maintain policies and procedures addressing information and operational security; business continuity; disaster recovery; anti-fraud; anti-money laundering; preventing funding of terrorist activity; and adherence to the VCBA and other relevant state and federal laws.

The VCBA contemplates virtual currency businesses being able to obtain a license in one state, and using that license to gain authority in other states. States are required to grant or deny licenses no later than 30 days after a filed application is complete and licenses should be renewed annually. A failure by a state to process or approve a license application within 30 days will automatically constitute a denial.

Licensees and registrants are obligated to maintain for at least five years certain transaction and other records, and may be subject to state inspections and enforcement actions. Licensees and registrants are obligated to hold sufficient virtual currency in each type (e.g., Bitcoin, Ether) to at least meet their aggregate obligations to customers in the type.

The VCBA has been approved but not yet finalized; a final model law should be issued by year-end for consideration by state legislatures.

The ULC, founded in 1892, is a not-for-profit and nonpartisan entity consisting of state-appointed lawyers that proposes legislation to bring “clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.” Among other major model laws that the ULC has adopted is the Uniform Commercial Code. (Click here for background regarding the ULC.)

Legal Weeds: In June 2015, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued final regulations requiring a so-called “BitLicense” and establishing minimum standards for all financial intermediaries who engage in a virtual currency business activity from New York or to a NY resident. The regulations cover a wide spectrum of potential businesses, although they exclude merchants and consumers who use virtual currencies in connection with transactions for goods or services, persons chartered under the NY banking law and approved to engage in a virtual currency business activity, and persons who engage in the mere “development and dissemination of software in and of itself.”

Under the DFS’s BitLicense requirements all financial intermediaries engaging in a virtual currency business must apply and obtain a BitLicense, and maintain certain minimum standards and programs to help ensure customer protection, cybersecurity and anti-money laundering compliance. (Click here for details in the article “New York BitLicense Regulations Virtually Certain to Significantly Impact Transactions in Virtual Currencies” in a July 8, 2015 Advisory by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.)

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the US Department of Treasury requires all persons that engage in a business of (1) exchanging virtual currency for real currency, funds or other virtual currency, or (2) in issuing a virtual currency who has the authority to withdraw such virtual currency from circulation to comply with its registration, reporting and recordkeeping requirements for money service businesses, unless exempted. (Click here for a summary of these requirements; click here to access a FinCEN guidance on persons administering, exchanging or using virtual currencies.)

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission exercises jurisdiction over derivatives based on virtual currencies, while the Securities and Exchange Commission recently indicated that certain digital tokens issued to raise funds for projects may be securities subject to its regulation. (Click here for background in the article “LedgerX Approved by CFTC as First Derivatives Clearing Organization for Fully Collateralized Swap Contracts Potentially Settling in Bitcoin” in the July 30, 2017 edition of Bridging the Week, and here to access the article “SEC Warns That Digital Tokens May Be Securities” in an August 3, 2017 Advisory by Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.)

My View: The very minimal level of business activity that requires licensing under the VCBA – US $35,000 annually – seems artificially low, given the very high bar to obtain a license. Moreover, the requirements to register for conducting even a lower amount of business (as opposed to obtaining a license) are not sufficiently lighter to be meaningful. These thresholds should be reconsidered before the VCBA is seriously considered by any state. Moreover, if a complete application for a virtual currency business activity license is not processed by a state within the requisite time for review – 30 days – a license is deemed denied. This outcome hardly motivates states to process applications in a timely fashion. If anything  a failure of a regulator to process an application timely should result in a license being deemed automatically approved. Additionally, it seems too open-ended that a state is authorized to charge an applicant the "reasonable costs" of an investigation into its qualification. There should be a fixed formula or maximum fee associated with investigations as well as a cap on the maximum surety bond or other form of security that a state may require. Finally, the ULC should amend the current incorrect reference in the VCBA to the "Commodities Exchange Act of 1936," to the law's correct name, the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. As a proud former CFTC employee, I always take it personally when I see the agency mistakenly referred to as the Commodities Futures Trading Commission or the CEA referenced as the Commodities Exchange Act!

For further information:

Banking Regulators Give Capital Break for Cleared Derivatives:
https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2017/fil17033a.pdf

CME Group Clearing House Proposes to Eliminate Mandatory Guaranty From All Five-Percent or More Shareholders:
http://www.cmegroup.com/market-regulation/rule-filings/2017/08/17-342_1.pdf

Federal Appeals Court Rules in Favor of FCM Seeking Return of Customer Assets From Sentinel Management Ruins:
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D08-14/C:16-1896:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2010502:S:0

Former Floor Broker Agrees to US $200,000 Fine to Resolve ICE Futures U.S. Spoofing Allegations:
https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/futures_us/disciplinary_notices/Dominick_Minervini_Case_NO._2016-045.pdf

ICE Futures U.S. Proposes to Amend Disruptive Trading Guidance to Clarify That Certain User-Defined Strategies Are Prohibited:
http://www.cftc.gov/filings/orgrules/rule081417iceusdcm001.pdf

Investment Adviser CCO Fined and Suspended for One Year for Firm’s Alleged Misleading Registration Filing:
http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2017/8/17/sec-fines-chief-compliance-officer-for-inaccurate-securities.html

Model State Law Regarding Virtual Currency Businesses Virtually Finalized:
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/regulation%20of%20virtual%20currencies/2017AM_URVCBA_AsApproved.pdf

NFA Bars Former Broker From Membership for Unauthorized Trading and Transferring Winning Trades From Customers to Himself:
https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=4474
https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/CaseDocument.aspx?seqnum=4475

Non-US Commodity Firm Settles CFTC Allegations of Wash Trading for US $300,000 Fine:
http://www.cftc.gov/idc/groups/public/@lrenforcementactions/documents/legalpleading/enfcopersucarorder081517.pdf

SEC Agrees to Dismissal of All Charges Against Alleged Key Players in London Whale Incident:
/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Javier%20Martin-Artjao%20Dismissal.pdf


The information in this article is for informational purposes only and is derived from sources believed to be reliable as of August 20, 2017. No representation or warranty is made regarding the accuracy of any statement or information in this article. Also, the information in this article is not intended as a substitute for legal counsel, and is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The impact of the law for any particular situation depends on a variety of factors; therefore, readers of this article should not act upon any information in the article without seeking professional legal counsel. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP may represent one or more entities mentioned in this article. Quotations attributable to speeches are from published remarks and may not reflect statements actually made.


© 2019 Katten Muchin Rosenman and Gary DeWaal. All Rights Reserved.