Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardProhibited Market Manipulation and Fraudulent Practices

A FINRA compliance examiner conducts an audit of a registered representative's trading activity across multiple customer accounts and identifies two distinct patterns:

Pattern 1: The representative executes matched buy and sell orders for an illiquid equity security across accounts under common beneficial ownership, generating artificially high reported volume.
Pattern 2: The representative routes customer buy orders through an affiliated third-party broker-dealer who charges an added markup, rather than routing directly to a market maker offering a better price.

Which of the following statements regarding the regulatory violations and enforcement authority in this scenario are CORRECT?

  1. Pattern 1 represents illegal wash trading or matched orders because it involves executing trades without a genuine transfer of beneficial ownership to create misleading market activity.Answer
  2. Pattern 2 represents interpositioning, an illegal execution practice under FINRA rules where a broker-dealer adds an unnecessary third party between a customer and the best market.Answer
  3. C
    FINRA possesses statutory legal authority to criminally prosecute the representative and impose federal prison sentences if Pattern 1 is determined to be intentional market fraud.
  4. D
    Pattern 1 is classified as spoofing because it relies on placing non-bona fide orders above or below the prevailing market price with the intent to cancel them prior to execution.

Answer

The correct statements identify Pattern 1 as illegal wash trading (creating false volume without changing beneficial ownership) and Pattern 2 as prohibited interpositioning (routing client orders through an unnecessary intermediary to inflate transaction costs).
Executing trades between accounts under common ownership to create false volume constitutes wash trading, which deceives investors by fabricating market activity. Inserting an unnecessary intermediary between a client's order and the best market price constitutes interpositioning, which violates FINRA's duty of best execution by unnecessarily increasing customer execution costs.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Pattern 1 to identify the specific market manipulation violation.
Executing simultaneous buy and sell transactions across accounts with common beneficial ownership constitutes wash trading / matched orders.
Securities regulations prohibit transactions designed solely to simulate volume or deceive market participants about active interest in a security.
2
Analyze Pattern 2 to determine if the order execution violates FINRA routing rules.
Routing customer orders through an unnecessary third-party dealer who adds a markup constitutes interpositioning.
FINRA Rule 5310 requires member firms to use reasonable diligence to obtain the best execution price for customer orders without inserting unnecessary intermediaries.
3
Evaluate the regulatory enforcement jurisdiction and definitions in the incorrect options.
FINRA lacks criminal jurisdiction to imprison violators, and spoofing requires order cancellation rather than executed wash transactions.
Criminal prosecutions are strictly conducted by government authorities (such as the Department of Justice), while spoofing differs from wash trading based on whether orders are intended for execution.

Key Concept

Prohibited Market Manipulation, Interpositioning, and Regulatory Enforcement Limits
Rate this question

Topics

Prohibited Market Manipulation and Fraudulent Practices