Market Misconduct – Global Investment Law Watch

Australia: Full Federal Court Finds in Favour of ASIC Appeal Concerning the Scope of the “Authorised Representative” Exemption

Jun 11 2025

The Full Federal Court (the Court) has ruled in favour of the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions’ (ASIC) appeal as to whether BPS Financial Pty Ltd (BPS) could rely on the ‘authorised representative’ exemption in relation to issuing their ‘Qoin Wallet’ product (see our previous post for background). The authorised representative exemption is commonly relied upon and allows a person or entity to provide a financial service under the Corporations Act on behalf of the holder of an Australian financial services licence (AFS licence) without having to hold an AFS licence itself.

Europe: UK’s FCA Axes Proposed “Name and Shame” and D&I Requirements, and Delays Non-financial Misconduct Rules

Apr 08 2025

By: Michael E. Ruck, and Laura Scott

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority had proposed a so-called “name and shame” approach that would have allowed it, subject to certain safeguards, to disclose its investigations into firms publicly at an early stage (see our earlier blog); however, following significant criticism from the financial industry and Parliament—largely highlighting risks that early disclosure could potentially cause irreversible damage to firms, including those later cleared of any wrongdoing—the FCA has abandoned the proposal.

Europe: UK Sanctions Regulator Highlights Compliance Failures

Mar 31 2025

By: Michael E. Ruck, Rosie L. Naylor, Petr Bartos, Helen J. Phizackerley, and Laura Scott

On 13 February 2025, the UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) published an assessment of suspected sanctions breaches involving UK financial services firms since February 2022. It highlights three areas of concern:

Europe: FCA Advances Efforts to Address the UK’s EU Legislative Legacy, Starting With MIFID

Feb 28 2025

By: Philip Morgan, Andrew Massey, and Harriet Sherwin

Following an HM Treasury policy statement, the FCA has published a consultation paper proposing amendments to some of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MIFID) conduct of business and systems and controls rules inherited from the EU that continue to exist in the UK statute book in close to their original form.

Australia: ASIC Continues Increased Scrutiny Into AFS Licensees for Hire

Jan 30 2025

By: Kane Barnett and Bernard Sia

ASIC has accepted a court enforceable undertaking (CEU) from Private Wealth Pty Ltd (Sanlam) after it admitted that it failed to discharge its general Australian financial services (AFS) licensing obligations in connection with its authorised representatives.

Europe: Are the UK FCA’s Revised “Name and Shame” Proposals an Improvement?

Jan 21 2025

By: Michael Ruck, Rosie Naylor, and Helen Phizackerley

In November 2024, the UK FCA released a Consultation which seeks to clarify its proposed approach to publicising ongoing enforcement action—dubbed the “name and shame” plan—and to assure the wider market of the plan’s benefits. Responses are due by 17 February 2025.

United States: Cooking the Books: CFTC Turns Up the Heat on Voluntary Carbon Market Fraudsters

Oct 17 2024

By: Cheryl L. Isaac, Clifford C. Histed, and Benjamin C. Skillin

On 2 October 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced multiple actions related to fraud in the voluntary carbon credit (VCC) market, just over one year after establishing the Environmental Fraud Task Force. Specifically, the CFTC filed a complaint in federal court against the former CEO of a carbon credit project developer and, on the same day, settled charges against CQC Impact Investors LLC (CQC) and its former COO, all related to a deceptive scheme purportedly intended to reduce carbon emissions.

United States: Extra Credit Projects: SEC Settles Charges Against Carbon Offset Project Developer for US$250 Million Offering Fraud

Oct 07 2024

By: Pablo Man and Benjamin Skillin

On 2 October 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settled charges against one of the largest carbon credit project developers (the Developer), for fraudulently altering data concerning its business and making material misrepresentations in the offering of equity to institutional investors in the United States. The SEC’s order found that the Developer violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

United States: D, F, G, 3, 4, 5: Firms Charged for Failing to Make Section 13 and 16 Filings

Sep 26 2024

By: Pablo J. Man, C. Todd Gibson, and Lisa N. Ju

On 25 September 2024, the SEC announced settled charges against 23 entities and individuals for failing to make timely filings about their holdings and transactions on Schedules 13D and 13G and on Forms 3, 4 and 5, pursuant to Sections 13 and 16 of the 1934 Act, respectively. The individuals charged were officers, directors and/or beneficial owners of publicly traded companies that failed to make “insider” filings. Two firms were charged for contributing to their officers’ and directors’ failures to file insider reports and for failing to comply with their own disclosure obligations to report such delinquencies. The penalties ranged from US$10,000 to US$750,000, and in the aggregate exceeded US$3.8 million.

United States: More Marketing Missteps

Sep 10 2024

By: Pablo Man, Pamela Grossetti, Lance Dial and Jennifer Klass

On 9 September 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settled charges against nine registered investment advisers for violations of Rule 206(4)-1 (the Marketing Rule). Unlike the prior settlements (which focused primarily on the use of hypothetical performance), these settlements focused on other elements of the Marketing Rule: (i) the prohibitions on statements of material fact that are untrue or that the adviser cannot substantiate; (ii) disclosures relating to testimonials and endorsements; and (iii) required disclosures for third-party ratings. Many of these violations were based on website disclosures. In total, nine advisers agreed to pay US$1,240,000 in combined civil penalties, ranging from US$60,000 to US$325,000.

Tag:Market Misconduct