The Block Order, the Personal Account and the Brother-in-Law
At 09:40 a fund management client calls Sofia, a dealer's representative at a Kuala Lumpur brokerage, and places a buy order for 8 million shares in a mid-cap construction counter. The stock's 20-day average daily volume is 1.5 million shares. The client asks Sofia to work the order over three days, and states twice that the instruction is confidential and must not be shown to anyone outside the execution desk.
At 09:52 Sofia buys 200,000 shares for her own account. At 09:55 she buys 150,000 shares for an account held by her brother-in-law. At 10:05 she mentions the order to a colleague who handles discretionary accounts, saying "there's a big buyer coming through". By 14:00 the stock is up 9% on roughly four times normal volume.
The firm requires pre-clearance for all personal account dealings, with a minimum holding period of 30 days. Sofia did not seek pre-clearance, and her brother-in-law's account is a client account that Sofia opened and services. The firm's surveillance system generated a same-day alert on the price move but not on Sofia's trades.
1. Identify each distinct breach in Sofia's conduct and explain why each matters separately.
Read the worked answer
The breaches are separate obligations and should be assessed separately, even though they flow from one order.
1. Front-running. Buying for herself and for a connected account after learning of a client's unexecuted order, and before executing it, is trading ahead of the client. The client's execution will now be worse than it should have been, and Sofia has profited from information entrusted to her by that client. This is the most serious breach: it is a misuse of confidential client order information.
2. Misuse of confidential information. The client expressly restricted the information to the execution desk. Sofia disclosed it to a colleague outside the desk. Whether or not the colleague traded, the disclosure itself breaches the client's instruction and the firm's duty of confidentiality, and it created a further opportunity for misuse.
3. Personal account dealing without pre-clearance. The pre-clearance rule exists to catch exactly this case before it happens. Bypassing it removes the only ex-ante control the firm has.
4. Dealing for a connected person. Her brother-in-law's account is both a client account and a related-party account. Buying for it ahead of the institutional client is a conflict she cannot objectively manage, and doing so without disclosure or approval compounds it.
5. The 30-day holding rule. If she sells within 30 days she commits a further breach; if she holds, she holds a position acquired improperly. Either way the position must be reviewed, not simply left to run.
Each matters separately because each has its own control, its own evidence and its own consequence. Treating it as "one mistake" would leave four controls unreformed.
2. What should the firm do now - in order - and how should the institutional client be treated?
Read the worked answer
The order of operations matters, because the client's execution is still live and the market has already moved.
Immediately. Escalate to compliance and the head of dealing. Remove Sofia from the client's order so that the remaining execution is handled by someone with no exposure. Do not let her sell her position or her brother-in-law's before the review, and instruct her in writing not to discuss the matter with the client, the colleague or her brother-in-law.
Same day. Reconstruct the timeline from phone records, order logs, the colleague's account activity and the brother-in-law's account. Determine whether the colleague or his clients traded. Segregate and freeze the relevant positions pending the outcome.
Client treatment. Contact the institutional client promptly and honestly, through senior management, not through Sofia. Tell them what is known - that an employee traded ahead of their order and that the matter is being investigated - and offer a remedy: execution of the balance at terms that do not disadvantage them, or compensation for the price impact. Do not offer an explanation before the facts are established, and do not characterise the employee's conduct as a misunderstanding. Clients discover these things; the difference between a recoverable relationship and a lost one is whether they hear it from the firm first.
Regulatory. Assess whether the conduct must be notified to the Securities Commission, and notify promptly. Market misconduct matters rarely improve with delay.
Then. Disciplinary process, remediation of controls, and a review of surveillance design - the alert fired on the price move, not on the trade, which is the wrong trigger.
3. Sofia argues that an 8 million share order in a stock trading 1.5 million a day would have moved the price anyway, and that she only told one colleague. Evaluate that defence and identify what the surveillance system should have caught.
Read the worked answer
The defence fails on both limbs.
"It would have moved anyway." The argument confuses market impact with informational advantage. Yes, a large order will move the price once it becomes visible. That is precisely why the client asked for it to be worked discreetly over three days - the client was trying to minimise impact. Sofia's purchases, and the colleague's disclosure, made the order visible earlier than it needed to be, and the 9% rise by 14:00 is the outcome the client was paying the firm to avoid. The relevant comparison is not "would the price have moved" but "would it have moved this much, this fast, and who benefited". She bought at 09:52, before the impact she helped create. That is the profit the client lost.
"Only one colleague." Confidentiality is not a numbers test. The instruction was that the order not be shown to anyone outside the execution desk; one person outside the desk is a breach, and the recipient's role - discretionary accounts - is the worst possible recipient. A single well-placed disclosure can move more stock than a hundred small trades.
What surveillance should have caught. Three failures. First, the alert was price-based; the system should screen for an employee's own trade in a stock where a client order is live, which is a simple pre-trade and post-trade comparison. Second, connected-party accounts were not linked to Sofia, so the brother-in-law's trade triggered nothing. Third, there was no exception report on dealings without pre-clearance - a control that only works if an unapproved trade is detected, not merely prohibited. The fix is not more rules; it is alerts on the existing ones.