FSA fines Commerzbank £595,000 for reporting failures
Share
The FSA has fined the London branch of Commerzbank £595,000 for inaccurate transaction reporting.
The regulator found that for two years Commerzbank either failed to report or reported inaccurately almost all of its reportable transactions.
Firms are required to ensure they submit accurate data for reportable transactions by close of business the day after a trade is executed.
The FSA uses this data to detect and investigate suspected market abuse like insider trading and market manipulation.
These breaches occurred despite the FSA sending repeated reminders to firms of their obligations to provide accurate data and the importance of compliance with the FSA rules on transaction reporting, and specific requests to Commerzbank for the firm to check its data.
FSA director of markets Alexander Justham says: “Complete and accurate transaction reports are an essential component of the FSA’s market monitoring work.
“Commerzbank’s reporting failures could have a damaging impact on our ability to detect and investigate suspected market abuse.
“Firms and their management must ensure they submit quality transaction reporting data.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (9)
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2010 10:41 am
I always thought that the object of the FSA was to work with the industry. However, it appears that if they can find an excuse to fine someone they will. This is typical of the bullying tactics of the FSA
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2010 10:55 am
I don't see this as bullying - many of us work hard to ensure our transaction reports are produced accurately and on time as required by the rules. Why should the big companies get away with not producing reports for 2 years. What I'd like to see is a more pro-active approach in terms of the FSA working with companies on a daily basis to identify rule breaches much sooner rather than letting them get away with it for 2 years and then fining them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Louise Dunn | 27 Apr 2010 10:58 am
Re above comment - Really?! So, clear instructions to be followed, repeated failure to do so and reminders is 'just an excuse to fine someone' and 'bullying tactics'..........You probably believe the Police use serious crime as an excuse for locking people up! Oh, it's all sooo unfair.........
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2010 11:01 am
does anyone know where the proceeds of all these millions in fines go? If into public coffers the FSA is certainly doing its bit to reduce the public debt...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Harding | 27 Apr 2010 11:18 am
Typical of the FSA's slapdash approach to regulation. Much easier to fine a company for not filling in the forms correctly than to do any proper regulatory work. It also makes them feel busy, as if they are doing something, anything being better than inaction in their books. If truth be told though this is the only way these bureaucrats know, they even believe it makes them look competent, poor dears.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Price | 27 Apr 2010 11:29 am
Re Anonymous (!) 11.01am - yes, fines cannot be used by FSA as additional income, so are used to reduce the fees of firms in the same fee block.
I don't know how many times I and others have had to explain this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
derekt | 27 Apr 2010 11:51 am
oh good , does this mean our fees will go down next year. hallaluia!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
lol | 27 Apr 2010 12:23 pm
In view of the mega fines the fsa are issuing, the rest of us should receive an invoice with "Nil payment due" next time our fees are due.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bemused. | 27 Apr 2010 1:09 pm
Every project manager in the country should read this final notice and learn what not to do. If I hadn't been on projects like it, I wouldn't have believed it possible.
I think the bank got away lightly on this. If that's the way they treat reporting, what else do they think is unimportant? Time for a full scale audit?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment