简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
FCA Fines Bastion Capital for Cum-Ex Trading
Abstract:Bastion Capital has incurred substantial penalties due to significant deficiencies in its financial controls, marking the fifth case by the FCA related to cum-ex trading.

Bastion Capital London Limited has been levied a substantial fine of £2,452,700 by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for significant lapses in financial controls linked to cum-ex trading. The FCA found that Bastion Capital inadequately managed the risk of being exploited for fraudulent trading and money laundering purposes.

During the period spanning January 2014 to September 2015, Bastion Capital carried out trades totaling around £49 billion in Danish equities and £22.5 billion in Belgian equities on behalf of clients from Solo Group. The manner in which these transactions were conducted raised significant suspicions of involvement in financial wrongdoing.
It appears that these trades were orchestrated with the intention of facilitating withholding tax reclaims in Denmark and Belgium. As a result, Bastion Capital received a commission amounting to £1.55 million, which constituted a substantial portion of the company's revenue during that specific timeframe.
Furthermore, Bastion Capital was involved in a sequence of trades executed on behalf of 11 Solo Clients within a span of four days. Remarkably, these clients took opposite positions within hours at significantly disparate prices. As a consequence, Ganymede Cayman Ltd, one of the Solo Clients, incurred a substantial loss of €22.7 million, while the remaining ten Solo Clients gained a corresponding advantage.
Bastion Capital exhibited a failure to recognize or intentionally disregarded numerous warning signs associated with these trades. These transactions lacked any legitimate economic purpose and were solely intended to transfer funds from the controller of the Solo Group to their business associates.
Steve Smart, the Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, remarked, “Bastion generated substantial fees by executing trades on behalf of Solo Group, which ultimately aimed to make unlawful tax reclaims from the Danish and Belgian authorities.”
“They failed to recognize evident warning signs that should have alerted them to the potential involvement in financial crimes. It is crucial for firms to effectively manage and mitigate these risks.”
Bastion did not contest the FCA's conclusions and opted for a settlement, which made them eligible for a 30% reduction under the FCA's Settlement Discount Scheme. As Bastion is currently in liquidation, the FCA will become a creditor of the company. However, existing creditors will be given priority over the FCA's financial penalty.
FCA Fights Cum-Ex Trading
This represents the FCA's fifth case involving cum-ex trading, which is part of a broader series of actions taken by the FCA in relation to cum-ex dividend arbitrage cases. To date, the FCA has levied fines exceeding £20 million on firms that have generated fees totaling more than £7 million from such trading activities. Recently, the FCA imposed a significant fine on ED&F Man, and last year, it imposed fines on TJM Partnership Limited.
Cum-ex trading, a contentious form of stock trading, was predominantly practiced in Germany and other parts of Europe before being declared illegal due to its exploitative nature. The term “cum-ex” originates from the Latin words “cum” (with) and “ex” (without), signifying the presence or absence of dividend rights associated with shares.
In this type of trading, both the initial bank and the stock borrower would simultaneously claim tax refunds for capital gains tax on the same stock, effectively enabling them to obtain twice the amount of taxes originally paid. This exploitation of a loophole in the system allowed for the diversion of funds from the state treasury.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

Firsttrade Review: Traders Raise Ponzi-Style Scam Concerns, Withdrawal Denials & More Issues
Have you lost all your capital while trading via Firsttrade? Does the US-based forex broker disallow you from withdrawing funds? Do you have to pay massive fees when transferring funds? Does your trade get affected because of frequent malfunction in the trading app? These have been haunting many traders at Firsttrade. Consequently, many of them have raised complaints online. In this Firsttrade review, we have shared such complaints. Keep reading to know about them.

Don’t Get Scammed: A Roundup of Common Online Fraud Tactics in Forex
Forex scams are evolving faster than ever; learn the most common tactics (cloned platforms, fake investment managers, fake recovery services) and how to spot them before you deposit.

Defcofx Review: Spread Manipulation & Poor Customer Support Outrage Traders
Does the poor customer support service leave you stunned when trading via Defcofx? Do you receive blunt, negative responses from the support team on several trading queries? Does the Saint Lucia-based forex broker pile on the losses for you by manipulating forex spread charges? In this Defcofx review, we have shared some complaints made against the broker. This will further answer your question: Is Defcofx real or fake?

Beware the “Ghost Brokers” This Halloween — Trade Safely with WikiFX
Stay safe this Halloween! Spot and avoid ghost brokers in the forex world with WikiFX – your trusted tool for verifying broker legitimacy.
