GFI Securities to pay $4.3m over inappropriate handling of customer identities

Maria Nikolova

From January 2014 to June 2016, certain representatives on GFI’s equity derivatives desk regularly disclosed customer identities to potential counterparties.

GFI Securities, a broker-dealer owned by BGC Partners L.P., has agreed to pay $4.3 million as a part of a settlement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The proceedings concern misstatements that GFI made to its customers concerning how its registered representatives handled customer identities in brokering securities transactions.

General industry practice for interdealer brokers like GFI in the equity derivatives marketplace includes preserving the anonymity of a customer’s identity prior to execution of a trade.

GFI publicly represented that it generally maintained the anonymity and confidentiality of customer identities. Further, GFI had written internal policies that generally required its registered representatives to maintain the confidentiality of customer information, including customer identities, but did not adequately inform and train its employees concerning these policies.

From January 2014 to June 2016, at least three of the registered representatives on GFI’s equity derivatives desk regularly provided customer identities to potential counterparties, and other registered representatives on the desk did so on an occasional basis. The registered representatives who engaged in this practice regularly gave customer identifying information to certain customers who were among their own top revenue-generating customers. One such customer received counterparty identities on a near daily basis.

The SEC says that GFI failed to take reasonable steps to inform the registered representatives on its equity derivatives desk and their supervisors of the company’s confidentiality and anonymity policy. GFI distributed documents detailing its internal policy directly to the representatives on its equity derivatives desk and their supervisors on two occasions – once in a March 2006 memorandum and a second time in an April 2016 memorandum.

While the March 2006 memorandum was available to employees on the firm’s intranet, GFI did not provide adequate substantive training concerning the anonymity policy. Thus, annual compliance training materials that GFI used at meetings in 2012, 2013, and 2014 referenced the existence of a “Client Confidentiality Reminder” without referring to anonymity. GFI’s anonymity policy was not mentioned in training materials that were used in online annual compliance courses in 2015 or 2016.

In addition, GFI failed to alert its employees to the public statements that it had made concerning confidentiality and anonymity.

Moreover, the desk supervisors were not aware of their responsibility to enforce the policies or to monitor registered representatives for compliance with the policies.

In or around May 2016, GFI became aware that one of the registered representatives on GFI’s equity derivatives desk disclosed customer identities on a number of occasions. GFI informed the registered representative to stop disclosing customer names in the future, however, this representative, along with other registered representatives on the desk, continued to disclose customer identities on a number of occasions.

During the Relevant Period (January 2014 – June 2016) GFI received commissions based on the successful brokering of trades for customers who were not aware that the registered representatives on GFI’s equity derivatives desk had disclosed their identities to other customers.

The Commission concludes that GFI violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, which makes it unlawful for “any person in the offer or sale of any securities . . . directly or indirectly . . . to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.”

On top of paying a monetary penalty, GFI agrees to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act. GFI is also censured.

Read this next

blockdag

Best Crypto to Buy: BlockDAG Presale Hits $20.1M Following Moon-Shot Keynote Teaser as Dogecoin & Shiba Inu Prices Plummet

This landmark achievement sets it apart in the cryptocurrency landscape, where traditional favorites like Dogecoin and Shiba Inu are witnessing a price decline.

Digital Assets

El Salvador refutes rumors of Bitcoin wallet hack

Chivo Wallet, El Salvador’s official cryptocurrency wallet, has dismissed reports of a hack involving its software source code and the data of over 5 million users associated with its KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures.

Digital Assets

MetaMask developer sues SEC over regulatory overreach

Ethereum ecosystem developer Consensys Software has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), challenging the agency’s regulatory actions concerning Ethereum and its related services.

Institutional FX

Tradeweb pulls in $408.7 million in Q1 revenue amid record trading volumes

Tradeweb Markets Inc. (NASDAQ: TW) has just announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2024, which showed a robust performance for the three months through March.

Institutional FX

BGC Group valued at $667 million following investment by major banks

BGC Group announced that its exchange platform, FMX Futures, is now valued at $667 million after receiving investments from a notable consortium of financial institutions.

blockdag

Transforming a Bankrupt Investor into a Cryptocurrency Giant; Can BlockDAG Replicate Ethereum’s Meteoric Rise With 30,000x Predictions?

The realm of cryptocurrency investing presents a thrilling blend of challenges and opportunities. The legendary gains by early Ethereum investors serve as a powerful lure for those seeking the next major breakthrough.

Digital Assets

SEC delays decision on spot bitcoin options ETFs

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has postponed its decision on whether to authorize options trading on spot bitcoin ETFs, extending the review period by an additional 45 days. The new deadline for the SEC’s decision is now set for May 29, 2024.

Market News, Tech and Fundamental, Technical Analysis

Solana Technical Analysis Report 25 April, 2024

Solana cryptocurrency can be expected to fall further toward the next support level 130.00, target price for the completion of the active impulse wave (i).

Digital Assets

Morgan Stanley to sell bitcoin ETFs to clients

Morgan Stanley may soon allow its 15,000 brokers to recommend bitcoin ETFs to their clients, as reported by AdvisorHub.

<