Matched Trades in an Illiquid Wheat Contract
Surveillance at a PMEX member flags two accounts trading an illiquid wheat contract. Account A is a proprietary account of a small trading company; Account B belongs to the spouse of the member's head of operations. Between 09:30 and 10:00 they execute 18 matched round trips: A buys 20 lots, B sells 20 lots at the same price within seconds, then reverse, repeatedly. The trades represent 88% of the contract's volume that day, and prices move from 3,100 to 3,190 with no news. The operations head asks surveillance to 'leave it, it's just family accounts.' The compliance officer must decide whether to report, restrict accounts, and preserve records. The member's AML/CFT and market-conduct policies require escalation of suspicious activity and prohibit tipping off.
1. Identify the red flags and characterize the trading. Is it likely to be legitimate market activity?
Read the worked answer
The pattern has multiple red flags: repeated matched buy and sell orders of identical size, at the same price, within seconds; reversal of the same pairs; 18 round trips in 30 minutes; 88% of the day's volume in an illiquid contract; a price move with no news; and a relationship between one account and a member employee. Legitimate trading can produce occasional matched fills, but repeated offsetting trades with no apparent economic purpose suggest wash trading or pre-arranged trading designed to create volume or move the price. The accounts may also be acting in concert. The fact that one account belongs to a family member of the operations head increases the conflict and the risk of concealment. Surveillance should not treat the pattern as harmless without examining order-level data, communications and beneficial ownership.
2. What should compliance do immediately, and what reporting obligations may arise?
Read the worked answer
Compliance should preserve all order logs, trade records, account-opening documents, communications and surveillance alerts, and restrict further trading in both accounts pending review. It should escalate to senior management and the board or audit committee as required, and ensure the operations head is recused from any investigation because of the family relationship. The member should assess whether the activity constitutes market abuse or a suspicious transaction and make the required reports to the exchange and the SECP, and to the financial monitoring authority where AML/CFT suspicion exists, within the applicable timelines. The member must not tip off the clients or the operations head about the report. It should also review whether the member's systems failed to detect the relationship and whether other accounts are connected.
3. How should the compliance officer handle the operations head's instruction to 'leave it'?
Read the worked answer
The compliance officer should not comply with the instruction. The operations head has a direct conflict because the account belongs to his spouse, and his request to suppress surveillance is itself a governance red flag. Compliance should document the instruction, decline it, and escalate the conflict to the CEO or board-level committee and, if necessary, the internal audit function. The officer should ensure the investigation is independent and that the operations head has no access to the relevant records or decision-making. If the member's policies require external reporting, the officer should proceed regardless of internal pressure. Retaliation against the compliance officer should be treated as a separate conduct issue. The priority is to preserve market integrity, protect the member from regulatory breach, and avoid tipping off the accounts.