Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
"Spoofing" as Fraud: A Novel and Untested Theory of Prosecution
In June 2018, we published an article discussing the government's efforts to prosecute defendants who engage in a form of trading activity on commodity futures exchanges known as "spoofing," which the law defines as "bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution." See, Jodi Misher Peikin & Brent M. Tunis, "When Is a Bid or Offer a 'Spoof'?," Business Crimes Bulletin (June 2018). In that article, we observed that the failure of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to define what specific conduct qualifies as spoofing has left market participants uncertain about when cancellation of a bid or offer crosses the line from an acceptable trading strategy to an illegal "spoof." This ambiguity is compounded by the fact that rapid cancellation of orders is prevalent in the commodities markets. See, Richard Haynes & John S. Roberts, CFTC, "Automated Trading in Futures Markets" at 9 (2015) ("[J]ust over 50 percent of market orders are cancelled within half a second, approximately the speed of human reaction.").
Notwithstanding this confusion, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled its intent to pursue spoofing prosecutions aggressively. The lead prosecutor in the spoofing case against New Jersey-based algorithmic trader Michael Coscia described that prosecution as "just the tip of the iceberg." Greg Trotter, "Trader Michael Coscia 1st in nation to be sentenced under 'anti-spoofing' law," Chi. Tribune (July 13, 2016). This ominous proclamation was realized in January 2018, when DOJ announced a "spoofing takedown" bringing a litany of criminal charges, including commodities fraud and wire fraud, against eight individuals alleged to have engaged in spoofing-related activity. See, Press Release, DOJ, "Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan Announces Futures Markets Spoofing Takedown" (Jan. 29, 2018).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.