Front-Running Ahead of the Fund's Order
Ravi is lead manager of the Aster Small Cap Fund, a unit trust with RM 250 million in assets. On 9 May the investment committee approves buying up to 4% of the fund in NovaTech Berhad, a takeover candidate identified by research. Before the fund's order is placed, Ravi's brother-in-law, a broker, calls him and says NovaTech options are cheap, adding 'get in before your fund moves the price'. Ravi has not pre-cleared a personal trade for 14 months; he says the compliance system was down. He also accepted a RM 3,000 festive hamper from the same broker, which he logged in the gift register but did not seek approval for. Ravi buys NovaTech shares in his personal account 40 minutes before the fund's order. The fund's order fills 2.1% above the prior close, and Ravi's personal trade fills 0.8% above. A routine review by the compliance officer uncovers the sequence.
1. Identify the regulatory and ethical breaches in Ravi's conduct.
Read the worked answer
Front-running. Ravi knew the fund was about to buy up to 4% of NovaTech. He bought in his personal account 40 minutes before the fund's order. Trading ahead of a client order is front-running and may constitute market abuse. The fund's order was confidential and price-sensitive.
Personal account dealing. Ravi had not pre-cleared a personal trade for 14 months. Even if the system was down, he had a duty to use an alternative approval process or refrain from dealing. The 14-month gap suggests a systemic control failure as well as individual misconduct.
Confidential information and tipping. The brother-in-law's call suggests that information about the fund's intention may have leaked. Ravi should have reported the call and refused to discuss the fund's order.
Gift breach. The RM 3,000 hamper exceeded any reasonable threshold and was not approved. Logging it did not cure the failure to obtain approval. The gift also creates a conflict because the broker benefited from the relationship.
Ethically, Ravi placed his own interest ahead of unitholders. That is a breach of fiduciary duty, integrity and professional behaviour.
2. What immediate steps should the compliance officer take?
Read the worked answer
Suspend Ravi's personal dealing authority and restrict his access to the fund's pending order information while the investigation runs. Preserve all records: emails, chat messages, phone logs, personal account statements, order tickets, the investment committee minutes and the gift register.
Interview Ravi, the broker and relevant colleagues. Review all of Ravi's personal trades over at least the past 14 months, not just NovaTech, to see whether there is a pattern. Quantify whether the fund suffered a loss because of the price movement, and whether Ravi's personal profit should be disgorged.
Notify the trustee and assess the regulatory reporting obligation. Front-running and personal account dealing breaches are normally serious and may require immediate notification. Consider whether the brother-in-law's firm should be reported or restricted. Report to the board or audit committee. Do not allow the investigation to be led by anyone with a commercial interest in protecting Ravi.
3. What are the likely outcomes and how should the firm handle the gift?
Read the worked answer
The likely outcome is disciplinary action, potentially dismissal, and a regulatory report. The firm may require disgorgement of Ravi's profit and may be required to compensate the fund if the fund can show a loss. Depending on the jurisdiction, the conduct may be referred to the criminal authorities. The firm should also review whether supervision failed: why were 14 months of personal trades not pre-cleared, and why did no one detect the pattern?
The gift should be returned or donated to charity, with a written record. The gift and entertainment policy should be reviewed, including thresholds, prior approval and disclosure. The broker relationship should be reassessed, and all staff should be retrained on conflicts of interest.
Ethically, the firm should not treat the gift as a minor administrative issue. Small gifts can create a sense of obligation and are part of the same conflict that led to the front-running. The response should be proportionate, documented and consistent with the firm's code of conduct.