Ahead of the Merger: Director's Spouse Trades Through a Broker
At a Karachi brokerage, the compliance officer receives a PSX surveillance query about unusual trading in a listed textile company. A client, Mrs. A, opened her account 14 weeks ago with a conservative risk profile and declared 'family savings'. Over nine trading days she bought Rs 18 million of the company's shares, equal to about 1.8% of its free float. Two bank transfers funded the purchases: Rs 11 million from a private company owned by her brother and Rs 7 million from her own account. The stock rose 31% on heavy volume. Three days after her last purchase, the company announced a merger with a larger rival. Mrs. A is the spouse of a non-executive director. The sales head tells the compliance officer to answer the exchange 'informally' and not to 'harass a good client'. The compliance officer must decide what to do before the exchange's deadline that afternoon.
1. What regulatory issues arise, and what immediate steps should the compliance officer take before responding to PSX?
Read the worked answer
Issues. The timing, size and relationship create a serious insider-trading risk. Under the Securities Act 2015 and PSX Regulations, a person in possession of inside information must not trade or communicate it, and the broker must not facilitate. The spouse of a director is within the insider perimeter if she received information from him. The firm also has surveillance, KYC and record-keeping duties and, if suspicion is formed, an AML reporting duty to the FMU.
Immediate steps. (1) Preserve the account file, order tickets, bank statements, emails, call logs and the client's risk profile. (2) Escalate to the chief compliance officer and legal; do not let the sales head answer alone. (3) Respond to PSX accurately and by the deadline; an incomplete but truthful answer with a request for time is better than a misleading 'no comment'. (4) Place the account on enhanced monitoring; do not tip off the client. (5) Assess whether an STR is warranted. (6) Document every decision and the reason. Confidentiality is not a defence for misleading the exchange; client interests cannot override the duty to the market.
2. The sales head wants to keep the matter informal to protect the client relationship. How should the compliance officer handle this?
Read the worked answer
Conflict of interest. The sales head is putting revenue and relationship protection ahead of a regulatory duty. The compliance officer should decline the instruction in writing, explain the legal exposure of the firm and the individual, and escalate to the CEO or board audit/compliance committee if pressure continues. The instruction itself should be recorded in the compliance log.
Practical handling. The officer can say the exchange query will be answered factually, without prejudging the client, and that the client will be contacted through the proper channel. If the sales head interferes with records or tries to contact the client to align stories, that is a separate disciplinary and possibly criminal issue. The officer should remind staff of the whistleblowing channel and the code of conduct. Protecting a good client is not a lawful reason to give an incomplete answer; it converts a market-surveillance matter into an obstruction and ethics matter.
3. Which facts would strengthen or weaken an insider-trading inference?
Read the worked answer
Factors increasing suspicion. Purchases clustered shortly before a merger announcement; size inconsistent with a conservative profile; a new account; funding from a brother's private company; the director relationship; no prior trading history; unusual urgency; any contact between the director and the spouse before trades.
Factors reducing suspicion. A documented, pre-existing investment strategy; independent research or public rumours; a legitimate source of funds with matching bank and tax records; a disclosed relationship and Chinese-wall controls; trades spread over time; the director was not involved in the transaction. None of these is conclusive. The compliance officer should weigh the whole pattern, not just one fact, and should not conclude guilt. The question is whether a reasonable suspicion exists, not whether proof is already available.