RES 2B – Rules, Ethics and Skills for Derivatives Dealers of Non-Exchange Members

Correct: Statement I is correct because the Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to file a Suspicious Activity Report within 30 calendar days of detecting a potential violation. Statement II is accurate as the USA PATRIOT Act strictly prohibits disclosing the existence of a SAR to the subject to prevent interference with law enforcement investigations.

Incorrect: The strategy of assigning SEC jurisdiction to all commodity-based swaps is incorrect because the CFTC maintains primary regulatory authority over commodity derivatives under the Dodd-Frank Act. Focusing only on a 10% ownership threshold for beneficial owner identification is inaccurate as the FinCEN Customer Due Diligence Rule establishes a 25% equity interest threshold. Relying on incorrect jurisdictional boundaries or incorrect ownership percentages leads to significant regulatory compliance failures.

Takeaway: U.S. AML compliance requires filing SARs within 30 days, maintaining strict confidentiality, and identifying beneficial owners at the 25% ownership threshold.

Correct: The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to file a SAR with FinCEN for suspicious transactions exceeding five thousand dollars. This filing must occur within thirty days of the initial detection of the activity. Federal law strictly prohibits disclosing the existence of a SAR to the subject to protect the integrity of law enforcement investigations. Maintaining detailed records of the underlying evidence is required for five years under federal record-keeping rules.

Incorrect: The strategy of informing the client about the investigation constitutes an illegal ‘tipping off’ violation under the Bank Secrecy Act. Pursuing the immediate suspension of trading and reporting to local police misidentifies the primary federal reporting channel and may alert the suspect prematurely. Focusing only on a fifty-thousand-dollar threshold is a regulatory error, as the actual reporting trigger for suspicious activity is generally five thousand dollars. Simply conducting an inquiry without filing the required federal forms fails to meet mandatory compliance standards for derivatives dealers.

Takeaway: File SARs with FinCEN within 30 days for suspicious transactions over $5,000 while strictly maintaining confidentiality to avoid illegal tipping off.

Correct: Statements I and III are accurate because US regulatory standards require firms to maintain risk-based supervisory systems that adapt to business changes. Integrating audit findings and product updates ensures the compliance program remains relevant and addresses the most significant threats to the firm’s integrity.

Incorrect: The strategy of making compliance exclusively responsible for risk management fails because business units must act as the first line of defense. Opting for a reporting line from the CCO to the Head of Trading creates a fundamental conflict of interest. Relying on business units to ignore risk management undermines the firm’s regulatory obligations under the Securities Exchange Act. Choosing to prioritize trading desk reporting over board-level independence compromises the CCO’s ability to provide unbiased oversight.

Takeaway: Compliance risk assessments must be comprehensive and data-driven while maintaining an independent reporting structure that avoids conflicts with business units.

Correct: Under CFTC Regulation 23.701, Swap Dealers must notify counterparties of their right to require segregation of initial margin for uncleared swaps. This notice must be provided to a senior officer of the counterparty. The regulation ensures that collateral is held by an independent third-party custodian to protect against the dealer’s insolvency. This requirement is a core component of the Dodd-Frank Act’s framework for reducing systemic risk in the over-the-counter derivatives market.

Incorrect: Relying on standardized language within the ISDA Master Agreement fails to meet the specific, proactive notification requirements mandated by the Commodity Exchange Act. The strategy of using Eligible Contract Participant status as a blanket waiver is incorrect because the right to elect segregation applies regardless of this classification. Focusing only on commingled accounts at a US bank is insufficient as the law requires offering an independent, third-party custodial arrangement to the counterparty.

Takeaway: US Swap Dealers must notify counterparties of their right to independent initial margin segregation for uncleared swaps before execution.

Correct: Automated surveillance for wash trading is essential under CFTC and FINRA supervisory requirements. Effective programs must identify trades with no change in beneficial ownership. They must also include regular system calibration to ensure alerts remain relevant to current market conditions. This approach aligns with the firm’s duty to maintain a reasonably designed supervisory system under FINRA Rule 3110.

Incorrect: Relying on manual front-office reviews creates a significant conflict of interest and lacks the rigor of independent automated monitoring. Focusing only on high-volume accounts ignores the risk of manipulation in smaller, less liquid derivative contracts. The strategy of waiting for three days of persistent alerts fails to address immediate manipulative acts. This method violates the requirement for prompt detection and reporting of potential market misconduct.

Takeaway: Effective market surveillance requires automated detection of non-beneficial ownership changes and regular calibration of monitoring systems.

Correct: Under CFTC Regulation 23.600, Swap Dealers must maintain a robust Risk Management Program that includes rigorous internal audit and account reconciliation procedures. Implementing a T+1 reconciliation protocol ensures that margin discrepancies are identified and resolved promptly to protect client assets. Formalizing written authorizations is a critical internal control that prevents unauthorized fund movements and ensures a clear audit trail. Reporting these issues as material weaknesses in the annual CCO report is required to maintain transparency with regulators and senior management regarding the firm’s control environment.

Incorrect: Relying solely on increased spot checks while continuing to accept verbal authorizations fails to meet the stringent documentation standards required for derivatives dealers. The strategy of updating disclosures to normalize delays does not satisfy the regulatory obligation to maintain timely and accurate account records. Choosing to outsource the reconciliation process to a third party without fixing the underlying procedural failures ignores the firm’s ultimate responsibility for compliance. Focusing only on follow-up emails rather than prior written authorization creates significant legal and operational risks regarding the validity of asset transfers.

Takeaway: Derivatives dealers must implement documented internal controls and report material operational weaknesses to ensure the integrity of client account auditing.

Correct: Statement I is correct because FINRA Rule 4513 requires firms to preserve records of written customer complaints for at least four years. Statement III is correct as FINRA Rule 4530 mandates reporting of specific serious allegations, such as misappropriation, within 30 calendar days of discovery.

Incorrect: The strategy of applying a $50,000 threshold for acknowledging complaints is incorrect because firms must address all written grievances regardless of the dollar amount. Relying solely on oral complaints for formal recordkeeping is a misunderstanding of FINRA Rule 4513, which specifically targets written communications. The method of reporting oral pricing disputes to the SEC is not a standard regulatory requirement for derivatives dealers.

Takeaway: US regulations require four-year record retention for written complaints and 30-day reporting for specific serious allegations to FINRA.

Correct: Statement I is correct because FINRA Rule 2111 requires a customer-specific suitability analysis that must be documented for complex products. Statement II is accurate as firms may fulfill suitability obligations for institutional investors if the client is capable of evaluating risks independently and affirmatively indicates such. Statement IV is correct because the SEC Regulation Best Interest Care Obligation requires broker-dealers to consider and document reasonably available alternatives when making recommendations to retail customers.

Incorrect: The strategy of excluding over-the-counter derivatives from suitability documentation is incorrect because regulatory requirements apply to all recommended securities transactions regardless of their listing status. Relying solely on the first two statements fails to account for the specific retail protections mandated under the SEC Care Obligation. Choosing to include the third statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the broad scope of the Securities Exchange Act. Focusing only on institutional independence ignores the mandatory documentation of specific rationale required for complex retail derivative structures.

Takeaway: Suitability documentation must cover the specific rationale, institutional independence, and consideration of alternatives to satisfy SEC and FINRA requirements.

Correct: Statement I is correct because Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act mandates that standardized swaps must be cleared through a registered Derivatives Clearing Organization. Statement II is correct as Basel III capital standards impose higher risk-weighted asset charges on bilateral, uncleared exposures to incentivize the use of central counterparties.

Incorrect: The strategy of asserting that all derivatives must trade on a Swap Execution Facility is incorrect because bespoke or non-standardized swaps are typically exempt from the execution mandate. Relying on the idea that US regulators intentionally deviate from international margin standards is false. US prudential regulators actively align with BCBS-IOSCO frameworks to ensure global consistency and prevent regulatory arbitrage. Focusing only on domestic competitive advantage ignores the statutory requirement for international coordination under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Takeaway: Dodd-Frank and Basel III work together to promote central clearing by mandating it for standardized products and increasing costs for uncleared trades.

Correct: Under US regulatory standards like FINRA Rule 2111 and SEC Regulation Best Interest, firms must evaluate a client’s financial ability to bear risk. Capacity for loss specifically requires analyzing whether a client can sustain the maximum potential loss without a significant impact on their standard of living. For derivatives, this must include an assessment of liquid reserves available to meet potential margin calls or collateral requirements. This ensures the client is not forced to liquidate essential or illiquid assets during market volatility.

Incorrect: Relying solely on a client’s status as an accredited investor is insufficient because net worth does not equate to the liquidity needed for derivative obligations. The strategy of focusing only on the hedging benefits of the underlying asset ignores the specific counterparty and structural risks inherent in the derivative contract. Choosing to depend entirely on subjective risk tolerance scores fails to address the objective financial reality of the client’s illiquid balance sheet. Pursuing a waiver-based approach is ineffective as regulatory obligations for suitability and best interest cannot be waived by client signatures.

Takeaway: Capacity for loss must be assessed based on liquid asset availability rather than total net worth or subjective risk preferences.

Correct: Statement I is correct because novation is the legal process where a central counterparty interposes itself between the original buyer and seller to guarantee performance. Statement III is correct as variation margin represents the daily exchange of funds to cover mark-to-market price fluctuations in the derivative’s value. These mechanisms are fundamental to the risk management framework of Derivatives Clearing Organizations under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Incorrect: The strategy of claiming all swap transactions must be cleared fails because the Dodd-Frank Act provides specific end-user exceptions for non-financial entities hedging commercial risks. Focusing only on cash payments for physical settlement is incorrect because physical delivery requires the actual transfer of the underlying asset or commodity. Pursuing the idea that all derivatives are subject to mandatory clearing ignores the regulatory distinction between standardized contracts and bespoke, non-cleared swaps.

Takeaway: Central clearing uses novation and variation margin to mitigate risk, while providing specific statutory exceptions for non-financial end-users.

Correct: Under CFTC Regulation 37.9, swaps subject to the trade execution requirement must be executed on a Swap Execution Facility or Designated Contract Market. These Required Transactions must use an Order Book or a Request-for-Quote system. The RFQ system must send the request to at least three unaffiliated market participants. This ensures competitive price discovery and transparency in the derivatives market. This approach aligns with the Dodd-Frank Act mandate for standardized derivatives.

Incorrect: The strategy of bilateral negotiation off-facility is restricted for swaps that have been made available to trade. Relying solely on a voice-only broker without an electronic platform does not satisfy the technological requirements for SEF execution. Focusing only on permitted processing functionality is incorrect because MAT swaps are classified as Required Transactions, which demand more competitive execution methods. Choosing to report to a Swap Data Repository is a separate reporting obligation and does not satisfy the underlying trade execution mandate.

Takeaway: Standardized swaps subject to the trade execution mandate must be traded on a SEF or DCM using competitive execution methods.

Correct: Statements I and III are correct because terrorist financing often involves micro-structuring, where small amounts are transferred to stay below the 10,000 dollar Currency Transaction Report threshold. Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury Department identifies non-profit organizations as high-risk entities because they can move funds across borders under the guise of humanitarian aid.

Incorrect: The claim that funds must originate from illegal activities is incorrect because legitimate income, such as personal savings or business profits, is frequently used to fund terrorism. Focusing only on the source of funds is a flawed strategy since terrorist financing detection prioritizes the intended destination and purpose of the capital. The method of treating terrorist financing exactly like money laundering fails to account for reverse money laundering where clean money is used for illicit ends.

Takeaway: Terrorist financing often involves legitimate funds moved in small increments through non-profit conduits to support illicit activities.

Correct: Gamma measures the rate of change in Delta relative to movements in the underlying asset price. Under CFTC Regulation 23.600, swap dealers must maintain a risk management program that monitors market risk sensitivities. High Gamma indicates that the portfolio’s directional exposure changes rapidly, necessitating frequent rebalancing to stay within board-approved risk limits and maintain a Delta-neutral position.

Incorrect: Focusing only on Theta decay fails to address the immediate risk of the portfolio becoming unhedged during sharp price swings. The strategy of prioritizing Vega ignores the direct impact of price movements on directional exposure, even if volatility remains constant. Pursuing Rho analysis is generally inappropriate for equity derivatives in this context because interest rate sensitivity is typically a secondary risk compared to price volatility.

Takeaway: Gamma measures the rate of change in Delta, requiring frequent rebalancing to maintain risk limits during periods of high market volatility.

Correct: Under the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, the SEC and CFTC have authority to pursue severe sanctions for market abuse. These include substantial civil monetary penalties, disgorgement of profits, and permanent bars from the industry. Willful violations are also referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, which can result in significant prison sentences. The Dodd-Frank Act further strengthened these enforcement capabilities to ensure market integrity in over-the-counter derivatives.

Incorrect: Relying solely on administrative censures and voluntary agreements ignores the statutory power of federal agencies to impose punitive financial sanctions. The strategy of limiting fines to gross commissions fails to meet the deterrent standards set by the triple-the-gain rule. Focusing only on cease-and-desist orders without immediate penalties contradicts the enforcement mandates established by the Dodd-Frank Act. Opting for internal restructuring as a primary remedy misrepresents the severity of federal responses to intentional market manipulation.

Takeaway: Market abuse in US derivatives markets triggers severe multi-agency sanctions, including massive fines, permanent industry debarment, and potential criminal imprisonment.

Correct: Statements I and II correctly differentiate between strategic risk appetite and granular risk tolerance. Statement III reflects CFTC Regulation 23.600, which requires the governing body to approve the Risk Management Program. This ensures senior-level accountability for the firm’s risk profile and strategic direction. The regulatory framework mandates that the governing body, rather than just business units, oversees the risk-taking boundaries.

Incorrect: Relying solely on the definitions of appetite and tolerance fails to account for the mandatory regulatory approval process required for Swap Dealers. The strategy of letting the front office determine its own limits violates the fundamental principle of independent risk management. Focusing only on combinations including front-office autonomy ignores the necessity of separating risk-taking from risk-monitoring functions. Pursuing an approach that excludes the governing body’s role overlooks critical oversight requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Takeaway: Risk appetite sets strategic goals while risk tolerance establishes operational limits, both requiring independent oversight and formal governing body approval.

Correct: CFTC Regulation 23.431 mandates that Swap Dealers provide non-Swap Dealer counterparties with disclosures of material risks and characteristics. This includes market, credit, liquidity, and operational risks, as well as the material economic terms and rights of the parties.

Incorrect: Relying on the client’s ECP status does not waive the dealer’s affirmative duty to provide specific risk disclosures under Dodd-Frank business conduct rules. Focusing only on client representations of independent analysis fails to meet the regulatory requirement for the dealer to proactively provide the disclosures. Pursuing a strategy of using generic disclosures is insufficient when the specific instrument contains unique margin or liquidity constraints that are material to the counterparty.

Takeaway: Swap Dealers must proactively provide written disclosures of all material risks and characteristics for OTC derivatives to ensure counterparty transparency.

Correct: The CFTC utilizes civil monetary penalties to deter future violations and cease and desist orders to prevent ongoing misconduct. Requiring an independent monitor ensures that systemic supervisory weaknesses are professionally remediated under regulatory oversight. This multi-layered approach addresses both the punitive and corrective aspects of enforcement under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Incorrect: Pursuing the immediate permanent revocation of registration and lifetime bans for all staff is generally reserved for cases of pervasive fraud or recidivism. Relying solely on a private letter of caution fails to address the public interest and the severity of six months of non-reporting. The strategy of referring the matter exclusively for criminal prosecution ignores the CFTC’s primary administrative authority to impose civil sanctions on the entity itself.

Takeaway: CFTC enforcement typically combines financial penalties with structural remediation and conduct orders to address systemic compliance and supervisory failures.

Correct: A thorough root cause analysis must look beyond individual symptoms to find systemic flaws in technology or processes. FINRA Rule 3110 and Rule 4530 emphasize that firms must detect and correct recurring issues through robust supervisory controls. This approach ensures the firm identifies whether the problem stems from technical latency, flawed algorithms, or inadequate internal transparency. It aligns with the regulatory expectation that firms proactively remediate underlying issues to prevent future harm to investors.

Incorrect: Focusing only on the consistency of settlements fails to address the operational defects causing the client dissatisfaction in the first place. The strategy of relying on staff training and disciplinary actions assumes the problem is purely behavioral. This method potentially ignores critical technical failures in the execution systems. Choosing to simply update disclosure language might mitigate legal risk but does not fulfill the regulatory obligation to maintain a fair trading environment. Pursuing a reactive approach that treats each complaint as an isolated incident prevents the firm from identifying broader patterns of market misconduct.

Takeaway: Root cause analysis must identify systemic operational or supervisory failures to ensure long-term remediation and regulatory compliance.

Correct: Under FINRA Rule 8310, a public censure is a formal disciplinary sanction that becomes part of a firm’s permanent regulatory record. It is designed to provide transparency to the investing public and serve as a deterrent against future regulatory breaches. This sanction is often used in conjunction with fines to address significant failures in supervisory systems or internal controls. By publishing the censure, regulators maintain market integrity and ensure that other market participants understand the consequences of non-compliance.

Incorrect: The method of treating a censure as a confidential administrative reprimand is incorrect because these sanctions are specifically intended for public disclosure. Pursuing the idea that a censure is a preliminary notice that triggers automatic suspension confuses final disciplinary sanctions with emergency cease-and-desist orders. Choosing to view the censure as a non-disciplinary advisory opinion fails to recognize its status as a formal penalty for admitted or proven violations. The strategy of assuming the censure is a private warning for the board of directors ignores the transparency requirements of the United States regulatory framework.

Takeaway: Public censures are formal, transparent disciplinary actions used by US regulators to deter misconduct and inform the public of violations.

Correct: Under the Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. federal law, civil enforcement actions by regulators like the CFTC utilize the lower preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. Criminal prosecutions led by the Department of Justice must meet the much higher beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This distinction is fundamental to how parallel proceedings are litigated and settled in the United States.

Incorrect: The strategy of claiming Fifth Amendment protections for corporate records is legally invalid because the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to collective entities or business documents. Relying solely on a neither admit nor deny settlement to block criminal evidence is ineffective as such agreements do not bind the Department of Justice. The method of assuming a mandatory stay of civil proceedings is incorrect because courts generally allow parallel actions to proceed simultaneously unless a specific stay is granted.

Takeaway: Civil and criminal proceedings in the U.S. operate under different evidentiary standards and can proceed concurrently despite involving the same underlying conduct.

Correct: Statements I, II, and IV accurately reflect United States regulatory standards for derivatives dealers and broker-dealers. FINRA Rule 3110 requires a supervisory system that ensures all associated persons are aware of compliance policies and federal laws. The annual compliance meeting is a mandatory requirement under FINRA Rule 3110(a)(7) and must facilitate interactive communication between staff and compliance. AML training is strictly required under the Bank Secrecy Act and FINRA Rule 3310 to ensure staff can identify and report suspicious activities.

Incorrect: The strategy of waiving training for experienced employees is incorrect because the annual compliance meeting is a universal requirement for registered personnel regardless of tenure. Relying on the assumption that all four statements are true fails because no regulatory exemption exists for individuals with clean disciplinary records. Focusing only on general compliance and meetings ignores the specific, mandatory AML training requirements established by federal law. Choosing to omit the general awareness requirement fails to recognize the firm’s broad duty to ensure all associated persons understand applicable securities regulations.

Takeaway: US regulators require mandatory annual compliance meetings and specialized AML training for all registered personnel regardless of their professional experience.

Correct: Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC and SEC share jurisdiction based on the underlying asset of the derivative. The CFTC regulates most swaps, including interest rates and commodities. The SEC oversees security-based swaps like single-name equity derivatives. This dual-agency approach ensures specialized expertise is applied to different market segments.

Incorrect: Relying solely on the SEC for all financial derivatives ignores the CFTC’s primary mandate over interest rate and broad-based index products. The strategy of centralizing all registration with the Federal Reserve fails to account for the specific statutory registration requirements for swap dealers. Focusing only on FINRA as a primary regulator misidentifies its role as a self-regulatory organization rather than a federal agency with independent rule-writing authority.

Takeaway: U.S. derivatives regulation is divided between the CFTC for general swaps and the SEC for security-based swaps under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Correct: Under CFTC Regulation 1.31 and SEC Rule 17a-4, derivatives dealers must maintain electronic records in a non-rewriteable, non-erasable format. This ensures the integrity of the audit trail for the duration of the five-year retention period. The system must also provide for indexing and immediate production of records to regulators. These requirements apply to both trade data and pre-execution communications to prevent any retrospective alteration of evidence.

Incorrect: Relying solely on data redundancy and encryption fails to address the specific regulatory mandate for unalterable storage media. The strategy of archiving pre-trade communications in non-indexed bulk storage violates the requirement for records to be searchable and readily accessible. Choosing a system that allows metadata corrections, even with a secondary log, contradicts the fundamental principle of maintaining original, unalterable electronic records. Focusing only on final execution reports ignores the requirement to preserve the full lifecycle of a transaction.

Takeaway: Regulatory recordkeeping requires unalterable storage formats and efficient indexing to ensure data integrity and immediate accessibility during examinations.

Correct: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prohibits providing anything of value to foreign officials to influence business decisions. Redirecting fees to a foundation controlled by a decision-maker constitutes a significant corruption risk. Firms must conduct enhanced due diligence and obtain compliance approval to ensure such payments do not violate federal anti-bribery laws. This approach aligns with FINRA Rule 2010 regarding standards of commercial honor and professional integrity.

Incorrect: Approving the payment as a charitable contribution fails because the FCPA covers indirect benefits provided to officials through third-party entities. Relying solely on a consultant’s written representation is insufficient due diligence under SEC and Department of Justice enforcement guidelines. The strategy of restructuring fees to offshore accounts often indicates an attempt to circumvent internal controls. Focusing only on the commercial fairness of the swap ignores the underlying legal risks associated with corrupt intent and improper influence.

Takeaway: Professionals must identify and mitigate indirect bribery risks, such as payments to third-party foundations, to comply with the FCPA.

Correct: Under FINRA Rule 4530 and Rule 3110, firms must establish robust supervisory systems to investigate complaints involving potential market misconduct. This approach ensures that evidence is preserved and that the firm independently evaluates whether the alleged activity, such as spoofing, triggers mandatory regulatory reporting requirements. Proper documentation and legal consultation are essential to meet federal oversight standards and maintain market integrity.

Incorrect: The strategy of allowing the proprietary desk to conduct a self-review fails to provide the necessary independence required for a credible compliance investigation. Choosing to offer immediate financial settlements as a goodwill gesture without a formal inquiry may inadvertently conceal systemic market manipulation and violates internal control principles. Pursuing a policy of reporting unverified allegations to regulators before an internal assessment can lead to inaccurate filings and demonstrates a failure in the firm’s supervisory duties. Focusing only on client relationship management through rebates ignores the underlying regulatory obligation to identify and remediate potential prohibited trading practices.

Takeaway: Firms must conduct independent investigations of market conduct complaints and evaluate reporting obligations under FINRA and CFTC rules.

Correct: Statement I is correct because CFTC Rule 1.10 and SEC Rule 17a-5 require derivatives dealers to file monthly financial reports, such as FOCUS reports, to monitor net capital. Statement II is correct as CFTC Rule 1.32 mandates that firms compute and report the amount of funds in segregation on a daily basis to ensure client protection.

Incorrect: The strategy of claiming that reporting is only required annually for firms without retail funds is incorrect because registration status triggers frequent reporting regardless of the client base. The method of allowing a 24-hour delay for reporting net capital deficiencies fails because SEC Rule 17a-11 and CFTC Rule 1.12 require immediate notification. Relying on quarterly-only reporting for all financial returns is inaccurate as most registered dealers must provide monthly data to their designated self-regulatory organization.

Takeaway: Registered derivatives dealers must submit daily segregation reports and monthly financial returns to ensure continuous compliance with capital and client asset rules.

Correct: Under the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN’s CDD Rule, identifying a Senior Foreign Political Figure as a beneficial owner is a significant trigger event. This requires establishing the source of wealth and funds to mitigate corruption risks. Senior management approval is a standard requirement for high-risk PEP-related accounts. Enhanced monitoring ensures that ongoing transactions remain consistent with the client’s known legitimate business activities.

Incorrect: Relying solely on a legal attestation fails to meet the regulatory requirement for independent verification of wealth sources. Simply updating a risk rating without performing substantive investigative steps leaves the firm exposed to significant compliance gaps. The strategy of filing a SAR immediately is premature unless there is actual knowledge or suspicion of illicit activity. Focusing only on public database checks without increasing the frequency of transaction monitoring ignores the heightened ongoing risk profile.

Takeaway: Trigger events involving Senior Foreign Political Figures necessitate verifying the source of wealth and obtaining senior management approval for continued engagement.

Correct: Under the Dodd-Frank Act and CFTC Business Conduct Standards, swap dealers must perform due diligence to ensure a recommendation is suitable for the client’s needs. Incorporating speculative elements into a structure presented as a hedge misrepresents the transaction’s risk profile. This failure violates the duty to provide a fair and balanced communication regarding the risks and characteristics of the swap. Proper classification is essential because bona fide hedging often qualifies for different regulatory treatment than speculative positions.

Incorrect: Relying on Major Swap Participant registration is incorrect because a single speculative transaction does not automatically trigger this status for a commercial entity. The strategy of applying the Volcker Rule is misplaced here as that regulation restricts a banking entity’s own proprietary trading rather than client-driven transactions. Focusing only on CFTC pre-approval represents a misunderstanding of the regulatory framework. The CFTC does not provide individual trade-by-trade authorizations for customized over-the-counter swaps. Pursuing a second opinion from an independent counselor is a business suggestion but does not absolve the dealer of its primary suitability and disclosure obligations.

Takeaway: Dealers must clearly distinguish between hedging and speculative components to ensure suitability and accurate risk disclosure under US law.

Correct: Statements I, II, and IV are correct. Wash sales involve transactions with no change in beneficial ownership and are prohibited under Section 9(a)(1) of the Exchange Act. This statute requires specific intent to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading. Matched orders involve collusive buy and sell orders of similar size and price to simulate market activity. These practices undermine market integrity and are strictly regulated by the SEC and CFTC.

Incorrect: The combination of I and IV only is incomplete. It ignores the essential legal requirement of specific intent for establishing a violation. The strategy of including statement III is flawed. US anti-manipulation laws like Rule 10b-5 and the Commodity Exchange Act cover both exchange-traded and over-the-counter instruments. Choosing the combination of I, II, and III fails. It incorrectly asserts that OTC derivatives are exempt from federal manipulation rules.

Takeaway: False trading requires specific intent to mislead the market through deceptive practices like wash sales or matched orders.