Goldman fined $2m for fraud conducted by customers
NEW YORK – The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have fined the clearing affiliate of Goldman Sachs $2m for an illegal trading scheme conducted by customers through their accounts at the firm.
The SEC and NYSE alleged that between 2000 and 2002, a number of Goldman's customers carried out the illegal short-selling scheme by placing their orders to sell through Goldman's direct market access automated trading system and falsely marked the orders 'long'. Relying solely on the way its customers marked their orders, Goldman executed the transactions as long sales.
Because the customers sold the securities short and did not have the securities at settlement date, Goldman delivered borrowed and proprietary securities to the brokers for the purchasers to settle the customers' purported 'long' sales.
The complaint accused the affiliate, Goldman Sachs Execution and Clearing of violating regulations requiring brokers to accurately mark sales long or short and restricting stock loans on long sales. It concluded that if Goldman had instituted and maintained appropriate procedures, it could have discovered through its own records the customers' illegal activity.
The SEC Order and NYSE Decision found that Goldman's exclusive reliance on its customers' representations that they owned the offered securities was unreasonable.
Goldman was censured for its conduct and ordered to pay $2 million in civil penalties and fines, in addition to an order to cease and desist from committing future violations. Goldman consented to the order and decision without admitting or denying the SEC or the NYSE's findings.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Capital neutrality key to completing Basel III, says Quarles
Former Republican Fed vice-chair thinks Hill or Bowman could help revive stalled prudential rules
Review of 2024: as markets took a breather, firms switched focus
In the absence of major crises and rules deadlines, financial firms revamped strategy, services and practices
Dora flood pitches banks against vendors
Firms ask vendors for late addendums sometimes unrelated to resiliency, requiring renegotiation
Swiss report fingers Finma on Credit Suisse capital ratio
Parliament says bank would have breached minimum requirements in 2022 without regulatory filter
‘It’s not EU’: Do government bond spreads spell eurozone break-up?
Divergence between EGB yields is in the EU’s make-up; only a shared risk architecture can reunite them
CFTC weighs third-party risk rules for CCPs
Clearing houses could be required to formally identify and monitor critical vendors
Why there is no fence in effective regulatory relationships
A chief risk officer and former bank supervisor says regulators and regulated are on the same side
Snap! Derivatives reports decouple after Emir Refit shake-up
Counterparties find new rules have led to worse data quality, threatening regulators’ oversight of systemic risk