Client-Money Shortfall, Settlement Funding and the Month-End Return
A securities broker's daily client-money reconciliation shows a Rs 12.4 million shortfall in the client bank account for three consecutive days. The operations head explains that Rs 11.1 million was temporarily used to cover a failed proprietary settlement and Rs 1.3 million relates to an unexplained payment to a vendor. The broker has 1,100 active clients and Rs 2.9 billion in client assets. The CEO wants to correct the account by transferring Rs 12.4 million from the firm's own account before the month-end regulatory return, and asks the compliance officer to treat the matter as a 'timing difference' if the balance is restored. The firm's risk appetite statement says client assets are 'never to be used for firm purposes'. The compliance officer must decide what to do in the next 24 hours.
1. What should the compliance officer do in the first 24 hours, and how should the shortfall be treated?
Read the worked answer
Treat the shortfall as a client-money incident, not a timing difference. In the first 24 hours: (1) preserve all bank statements, reconciliations, payment instructions, trade records and emails; (2) require an immediate independent quantification of the Rs 12.4m, separating the Rs 11.1m settlement use and the Rs 1.3m vendor payment; (3) instruct operations not to move client money again and have the firm's own funds restore the client account immediately, with dual authorization; (4) escalate in writing to the CEO, board risk or audit committee and legal or company secretary; (5) assess regulatory notification deadlines and client disclosure obligations; (6) consider whether the vendor payment is fraud or error and preserve evidence.
The CEO's proposed transfer may restore the balance but does not cure the breach. Booking it as a timing difference would misstate the cause and obstruct escalation. The risk appetite statement is explicit: client assets are never for firm purposes. The compliance officer should document the instruction, refuse to approve a misleading label and require a root-cause review covering settlement controls, bank mandates, reconciliation and access rights.
2. Recommend the control and governance changes needed after the balance is restored, including risk register and reporting.
Read the worked answer
Restoration is containment, not remediation. The control review should cover segregation of client and firm money, bank mandate and payment approval, daily three-way reconciliation, settlement funding, vendor master data and access rights. Require dual authorization for client-account transfers, independent reconciliation by someone outside operations, exception escalation within one hour, mandatory leave and rotation for staff with payment access. Update the risk register with inherent risk, control effectiveness, residual risk, owner and due date.
The governance response: board risk committee oversight, monthly client-money attestation by the CEO and compliance officer, internal audit unannounced testing, and a disciplinary review for the settlement use and vendor payment. Report to the regulator as required and keep a timeline of notifications. Track key risk indicators: reconciliation breaks, ageing, repeat causes, failed settlements and vendor changes. The compliance officer should not close the issue until independent testing confirms the controls operate. If the firm's culture treats client money as liquidity, escalate to the board and, if necessary, the regulator.