CFTC Announces Second Spoofing Action Against Commodity Traders


The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently announced its second enforcement action against a commodity trader for engaging in the manipulative scheme called “spoofing.”  U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Eric Moncada, 12 CV-8791, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, December 4, 2012 (“Moncada”).  In “spoofing,” a trader manipulates prices — the resulting prices do not reflect supply and demand fundamentals — by manipulating the actual bidding process to create a false impression of market liquidity.  In Moncada, the trader “spoofed” by repeatedly:

(i)  placing and immediately cancelling numerous large-lot orders without the intent to have the large-lot orders filled, but instead with the intent to create the misleading impression of increasing liquidity in the market;

(ii)  placing these large-lot orders at or near the best bid or offer price in a manner to avoid being filled by the market; and

(iii)  placing small-lot orders on the opposite side of the market from these large-lot orders with the intent of taking advantage of any price movements that might result from the misleading impression of increasing liquidity that the large-lot orders created.

In response, (1) the CFTC announced civil penalties (the higher of $140,000 or triple the monetary gains) and bans on future trading and registration and (2) the CFTC’s Director of Enforcement said:

The illegal scheme…entering and quickly cancelling large-lot futures orders without any intent to consummate a trade, undermines the integrity of the market. Traders may not employ deceptive schemes to simply drive price.  As our action today should make clear, we police the market for this type of activity and will bring charges against those who attempt to illegally game prices for their own advantage.  Release PR6441-12 December 4, 2012.

This is the second spoofing action that the CFTC has brought. In March 22, 2011, the CFTC fined Bunge Global Markets $550,000 for entering into trades they had no intention of executing for the purpose of determining the depth of and price in the market.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has not yet acted on a spoofing case but would find “spoofing” a manipulative practice in trading wholesale natural gas and electric products.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Stinson Leonard Street - Dodd-Frank and the Jobs Act | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.