Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardProhibited Market Manipulation and Fraudulent Practices

A trading surveillance audit reveals that a market participant simultaneously entered matching buy and sell orders for the same illiquid equity security across two accounts controlled by the exact same beneficial owner. This activity generated significant artificial volume and inflated market interest, attracting public buyers. When interviewed, the representative asserted that because no customer funds were misappropriated and FINRA is a self-regulatory organization (SRO) rather than a federal government agency, no regulatory violation occurred. Which of the following statements correctly evaluates the prohibited activity and regulatory jurisdiction involved?

  1. The activity constitutes wash trading, which is a fraudulent market manipulation prohibited under federal securities laws and SRO rules, regardless of FINRA not being a criminal prosecution authority.Answer
  2. B
    The activity constitutes spoofing, because entering offsetting orders across common accounts is designed to eliminate market risk while fabricating market depth.
  3. C
    The activity is legally permissible under SEC regulations because SROs like FINRA lack statutory authority to discipline market manipulation without prior federal court injunctions.
  4. D
    The activity is classified as legitimate principal dealer market-making, as firms trading from proprietary inventory are permitted to execute simultaneous transactions to establish price discovery.

Answer

The activity constitutes wash trading, which is a fraudulent market manipulation prohibited under federal securities laws and SRO rules, regardless of FINRA not being a criminal prosecution authority.
Wash trading occurs when transactions are executed with no real change in beneficial ownership to simulate market activity and mislead investors. FINRA, as a Self-Regulatory Organization under SEC oversight, possesses full regulatory authority to discipline member firms and associated persons for anti-manipulative rule violations, regardless of whether criminal prosecution powers exist.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the trading behavior in the scenario
Simultaneous buy and sell orders executed for accounts under common beneficial ownership with no actual change in ownership constitutes wash trading.
Wash trading creates a false or misleading appearance of active trading volume to induce other investors to trade.
2
Differentiate wash trading from spoofing
Spoofing relies on entering orders meant to be canceled before execution, while wash trading involves actual executed trades without beneficial ownership change.
Accurate regulatory categorization requires distinguishing non-bona fide quote quotes (spoofing) from matched non-economic transactions (wash trades).
3
Evaluate the regulatory jurisdiction argument regarding SRO authority
FINRA as an SRO has explicit statutory authority delegated under federal securities laws to enforce rules and discipline members for manipulative acts.
Lack of criminal prosecution power does not prevent an SRO from imposing administrative sanctions, fines, suspensions, or bars on member firms and registered individuals.

Key Concept

Wash Trading and SRO Regulatory Enforcement Scope
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Prohibited Market Manipulation and Fraudulent Practices