Market Abuse / Surveillance

Key dates

2024-06-30

MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.

2024-12-30

Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.

2026-11-06

The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
• Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
• Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
• Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
• Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
• Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
• Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
• Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.

Key dates

2020-06-01

Beginning of the SFC’s alleged relevant period for coordinated trading in Taste•Gourmet shares.

2020-07-27

Taste•Gourmet shares first closed above the alleged HK$1.32 price needed, based on shares then in issue, to meet the HK$500 million market-capitalisation threshold.

2020-08-05

Taste•Gourmet announced that it had submitted a formal application to transfer its listing from GEM to the Main Board; the shares closed at HK$1.35.

2020-09-18

End of the SFC’s alleged relevant period.

2026-10-22

The SFC announced commencement of Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings under section 274 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing issuer-related personal-account dealing, connected-person trading and employee dealing controls for arrangements involving relatives, nominees, associates or accounts funded by another person.
• Compliance teams may wish to test surveillance for aggressive orders near the close, orders that establish or move the closing price, concentrated activity by connected accounts, wash or circular trading indicators, and trading that accounts for an unusually high proportion of daily volume.
• Listed issuers and their advisers should consider documenting the basis for any market-capitalisation or price-related listing eligibility assessment and ensuring that trading activity is not coordinated or presented as genuine investor demand.
• Broker-dealers may wish to enhance customer due diligence and transaction monitoring for sudden fund transfers followed shortly by purchases in a thinly traded issuer, particularly where the customer is connected to management or a listing applicant.
• Firms should consider preserving chat messages, emails, order records, funding records, beneficial-ownership information and communications concerning target prices or order timing when an issuer is involved in a listing transfer or other price-sensitive transaction.
• Senior management and boards may wish to review escalation procedures for suspected market manipulation and ensure that potential issues are referred promptly to legal, compliance and, where appropriate, the SFC or SEHK.
• Compliance teams should distinguish this commencement of MMT proceedings from a final determination and monitor the MMT case for findings that may further clarify evidential indicators and the treatment of non-executive participants.

What changed

This publication does not introduce a new rule or reporting deadline; it announces enforcement proceedings under section 274 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). The SFC alleges that, from 1 June 2020 to 18 September 2020, the respondents coordinated purchases, discussed a target price and order timing, used substantial fund transfers followed by share purchases, and placed aggressive orders near the close that moved or determined the closing price.

Key dates

2023-02-28

Rex issued the ASX announcement stating that it was optimistic of achieving positive operating profit for the financial year.

2023-06-20

Rex subsequently forecast a $35 million loss, according to the independent reporting and ASIC proceedings described in the surrounding litigation.

2024-07-30

Rex shares were suspended from trading when the company entered voluntary administration.

2024-12-11

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, Lim Kim Hai and three former non-executive directors.

2025-09-30

Rex ceased to be listed on the ASX, following its listing from November 2005 to September 2025.

2025-12-01

Rex was acquired by United States-based Air T and subsequently renamed Regional Express Holdings Pty Ltd.

2026-05-20

Lim Kim Hai admitted all alleged contraventions against him, including the section 180(1) directors’ duty breach and involvement in Rex’s section 674A(3) continuous disclosure contraventions.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case against Rex and the former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review continuous disclosure policies and test whether material profit forecasts, earnings guidance and other market-sensitive statements are supported by documented, current and objectively reasonable assumptions.
• Boards and senior executives may wish to establish clear escalation triggers requiring immediate review of prior ASX announcements when financial performance deteriorates or underlying assumptions change.
• Compliance teams should consider maintaining an auditable record of the information available to directors when announcements are approved, including management forecasts, variance analysis, board papers and dissenting views.
• Listed entities should assess whether their procedures enable rapid correction, withdrawal or clarification of announcements that become inaccurate, misleading or unsupported, rather than waiting for the next scheduled results announcement.
• Boards may wish to confirm that directors understand the interaction between the company’s continuous disclosure obligations under section 674A of the Corporations Act 2001 and their personal duty of care and diligence under section 180(1).
• Firms should consider targeted training for executive and non-executive directors on market-sensitive information, earnings guidance, reasonable grounds for forecasts and escalation responsibilities.
• Companies involved in current or prospective enforcement matters may wish to preserve relevant board, forecast, email, announcement-approval and disclosure-committee records.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or amended obligation. The Court approved a four-year disqualification under sections 206C and 206E of the Corporations Act 2001 and an $800,000 pecuniary penalty under section 1317G(1), with payment required within 28 days of the order. The case establishes a significant practical compliance signal for listed entities: directors and senior officers may be personally exposed where they fail to take reasonable steps to ensure accurate market disclosure, including correcting guidance that has become misleading or lacks reasonable grounds.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-06-05

Relevant amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/2809, the Listing Act, began applying; intermediate information in protracted processes generally ceased to require immediate ad hoc disclosure before completion, subject to the amended MAR conditions.

2026-10-16

ESMA announced the final revised guidelines. They become applicable from their publication on ESMA's website in all 24 official EU languages.

Suggested considerations

• Review inside-information and delayed-disclosure policies against the final ESMA guidelines and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014, including the five new legitimate-interest scenarios.
• Update decision trees and escalation procedures so that a proposed delay is assessed against all MAR Article 17(4) conditions rather than being approved solely because it matches an ESMA example.
• Reassess controls for protracted processes in light of Regulation (EU) 2024/2809: distinguish intermediate steps that are no longer subject to ad hoc disclosure from final outcomes and from information whose confidentiality has ceased to be maintained.
• Add a specific check that a proposed delay does not contradict the issuer's latest public announcement or other communication on the same matter.
• Maintain contemporaneous written records of the inside-information assessment, legitimate interest, expected prejudice from immediate disclosure, confidentiality controls, rationale for the delay and the point at which disclosure must resume; consider whether and how the competent-authority notification and explanation required by Article 17(4) and Article 17(5) apply.
• Coordinate disclosure assessments across parent and subsidiary issuers where information about one group company could prejudice another company's delay, with clear ownership of confidentiality and announcement decisions.
• Train directors, senior managers, investor-relations personnel, transaction teams and advisers on the new examples, particularly public-authority requests, sensitive commercial opportunities and key-person appointments.
• Monitor the ESMA website for the publication of the final guideline text in all 24 official EU languages and record the applicable version used in the firm's disclosure framework.

What changed

The revised guidelines retain a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may support delayed disclosure and add five situations: a public authority requests non-disclosure; the issuer needs additional information to enable market participants to assess the information correctly; disclosure of sensitive commercial information could cause the loss of a business opportunity; disclosure could jeopardise the appointment of a governing-body member or manager in a key position; and disclosure of information concerning another group company could directly prejudice the issuer or undermine that...

Key dates

2021-01-01

Approximate beginning of the alleged delayed-allocation and cherry-picking conduct.

2023-10-31

Approximate end of the alleged conduct period.

2024-11-25

The SEC filed its civil complaint against Leech concerning the alleged allocation scheme.

2025-01-21

The district court reportedly stayed the SEC civil action pending resolution of the parallel criminal prosecution.

2026-06-05

The SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty and establishing a Fair Fund for affected investors.

2026-10-06

The SEC reported the consent resolution and final-judgment process against Leech, including a $3 million penalty, permanent injunctions and an officer-and-director bar.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing whether each block or derivatives trade is assigned to intended portfolios at or near execution, with documented reasons, approvals and timestamps for any necessary delay.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether allocation systems and workflows prevent personnel from using intraday price movements, daily settlement prices or first-day performance to select recipient accounts.
• Firms should consider surveillance comparing execution time, allocation-entry time, settlement-price availability, subsequent performance and recipient portfolio across portfolio managers and strategies.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate statistically significant differences in allocation latency, first-day gains and losses, reallocations, exception rates and benefits received by particular portfolios, fee arrangements or clients.
• Advisers should consider reconciling written fair-allocation and reallocation procedures with actual operating practices, including practices followed by chief investment officers and other highly senior personnel.
• Firms should consider preserving allocation instructions and related communications from trading platforms, order-management systems, email, messaging tools and manual worksheets in a form suitable for supervisory review.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance escalation procedures for delayed allocations, repeated reallocations, unexplained exceptions and material performance differences among similarly situated accounts.
• Advisers should consider reviewing client disclosures and policies describing pro rata, fair or equitable allocation methodologies against the firm’s actual allocation logic and exceptions.

What changed

This is an enforcement resolution, not a new rule or prospective compliance deadline. It reinforces that delayed post-execution allocation can create an Advisers Act antifraud and fiduciary-duty violation where the decision-maker can observe market or settlement-price information before assigning trades to client portfolios. The matter also signals that written allocation policies are insufficient if firms do not operate, test and supervise them effectively, particularly for senior investment personnel.

Key dates

2026-10-14

AFM publishes the policy on fines for deficiencies in MiFIR transaction reporting that firms fail to report voluntarily.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should compare their transaction-reporting incident procedures with the new AFM thresholds, while recognising that the AFM’s existing incident process can require notification before those thresholds are reached.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish documented escalation triggers for missing or late reports exceeding 100,000 transactions or 25% over at least two weeks, and for incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports exceeding 500,000 transactions or 50% over at least four weeks.
• Firms should consider treating the thresholds as minimum enforcement indicators rather than safe harbours, because the AFM separately expects firms to report significant incidents immediately and requires firms to decide reportability based on all available information.
• Transaction-reporting owners may wish to monitor rejected reports, failed resubmissions, invalid or missing LEIs, duplicate or unnecessary reports, and data-field errors, with evidence of detection dates, affected populations, root cause and remediation.
• Firms should consider retaining a defensible audit trail for incidents not reported to the AFM, including the issue scope, the reportability assessment, root-cause analysis, corrective controls and management approval.
• Where notification is required, firms should consider using the AFM incident form promptly rather than waiting for the investigation to finish, updating the AFM as facts develop and documenting any request for additional time.
• Senior management and compliance committees may wish to review recurring incidents and prior infringements because a second infringement within five years has a stated starting fine of €50,000, twice the first-infringement amount.
• Firms should consider validating their procedures against Article 26 of MiFIR, Article 15(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/590 and the Dutch Wft framework, including the requirement to report transactions completely, accurately and no later than the end of the following working day.

What changed

The AFM has formalised when an unreported transaction-reporting deficiency will be treated as involving a substantial quantity of transactions. For missing or late reports, the threshold is more than 100,000 affected transactions or more than 25% of reportable transactions over a period of at least two weeks. For incomplete, inaccurate or incorrectly submitted reports, the threshold is more than 500,000 affected transactions or more than 50% of reportable transactions over a period of at least four weeks.

Key dates

2026-10-13

The FCA and NCA arrested three suspects, searched five residential premises in London and Manchester, and seized more than 30 mobile phones, laptops and tablets in an ongoing investigation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether market-abuse surveillance covers relevant instruments, trading venues, employee dealing, client orders, communications and potential information-sharing networks, with risk-based scenarios for insider dealing and manipulation.
• Firms should consider testing escalation procedures for suspected inside information, including preservation of communications and devices, prompt investigation, documented decision-making and submission of suspicious transaction and order reports where required.
• Firms subject to UK anti-money-laundering requirements may wish to assess whether insider-dealing alerts are linked to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting and source-of-funds or source-of-wealth reviews.
• Senior management and control functions may wish to confirm that restricted lists, wall-crossing procedures, information barriers, personal-account dealing controls, conflicts controls and staff training remain appropriate for organised or externally coordinated threats.
• Firms may wish to ensure that surveillance records, alert rationales, investigation files and relevant electronic communications can be retrieved promptly if the FCA requests information or conducts an enforcement investigation.
• Relevant firms should consider reminding employees and connected persons that disclosing or using inside information, recommending transactions, or encouraging others to trade can create criminal and regulatory exposure; any communication should avoid implying that the arrested individuals have been charged or found guilty.

What changed

No new obligation, rule, threshold or compliance deadline was introduced. The publication announces an ongoing criminal investigation involving arrests, searches and evidence seizures, and confirms that the FCA is using its market-abuse and financial-crime enforcement powers jointly with the NCA. The FCA reported four insider-dealing convictions in 2025/26, including two cases producing combined prison sentences of 11 years, and fines totalling £1.77 million imposed on 12 people for insider dealing, market manipulation and misleading statements.

Key dates

2026-01-30

The SFC issued its earlier circular to licensed corporations carrying out sponsor work, addressing deficiencies in listing documents, sponsor conduct and resource management.

2026-09-30

The SFC’s comparison period ended: active applications exceeded 610, involving 64 sponsors and 325 signing principals; the SFC reported the September position in the October publication.

2026-10-13

The SFC published its update recognising progress in sponsors’ work and urging sustained vigilance against opaque IPO and post-IPO arrangements.

Suggested considerations

• Sponsors should consider reassessing current and proposed IPO mandates against available principals, deal-team expertise, supervision arrangements and the number of simultaneous active engagements; a principal supervising or participating in six or more active listing engagements is treated as strained under the SFC’s stated framework.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance documented enquiries into applicant-provided subscription funding, prepayments, loans, investments, guarantees, rebates and other direct or indirect benefits involving investors or their connected parties before or after listing.
• Overall coordinators and CMIs should consider strengthening beneficial-owner and source-of-funds checks, including enquiries designed to identify concealed ultimate investors, connected parties, common funding sources and coordinated subscription activity.
• Firms should consider implementing escalation triggers for late-stage order surges, orders disproportionate to an investor’s financial profile, unusual concentration or cancellations, and order books that diverge from the agreed marketing or allocation strategy.
• Sponsors should consider ensuring that due-diligence records explain the substance of the applicant’s business, the commercial rationale for material fund flows and the basis for responses to SFC and HKEX questions, rather than relying on checklist completion or third-party representations alone.
• Relevant gatekeepers may wish to establish a documented process for promptly escalating unresolved red flags to senior management, the SFC and HKEX where appropriate, while preserving order, client, communications and allocation records.
• Firms should consider reviewing controls in light of independent market commentary describing the SFC’s 2026 approach as prioritising quality over deal volume, substantive gatekeeping and suspected misuse or diversion of offering proceeds, rather than treating the announcement as a statistical progress report.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance rather than a new rule or stated deadline. The SFC reiterated that sponsors, overall coordinators and capital market intermediaries should maintain adequate resources, effective management oversight and high-quality substantive due diligence, while escalating concerns to the SFC and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong where appropriate.

Key dates

2026-10-13

The SFC directed SEHK to suspend dealings in Baicha shares from 9:00 am under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules; the SFC also announced the restriction notices and continuing investigations.

2026-09-10

The SFC directed SEHK to suspend dealings in Cloudbreak Pharma Inc. shares from 9:00 am under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules.

2025-04-01

Dealings in Tianju Dihe shares were suspended and remained suspended as of the SFC publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify any client accounts, beneficial owners, introducers, nominees or related entities connected to the Nine Entities or Three Entities and ensure that no restricted assets are dealt with or processed without prior written SFC consent.
• Affected brokers should consider implementing account-level restrictions covering trading, transfers, withdrawals, pledges, corporate actions and indirect instructions, while preserving records showing how restrictions and escalation requirements were applied.
• IPO intermediaries may wish to reperform look-through due diligence on placees and their ultimate beneficial owners, including common addresses, directors, funding sources, financing providers, nominee arrangements, subscription concentrations and links across multiple IPOs.
• Sponsors, underwriters and placing agents should consider reviewing whether subscription funding, post-listing financing, purported financial-product investments or issuer-to-placee arrangements could create undisclosed circularity or an artificial appearance of demand.
• Firms may wish to enhance surveillance for coordinated IPO applications, unusually concentrated allocations, rapid post-listing disposals, cross-account transfers, common funding sources and flows between issuers, major placees and connected parties.
• Firms with exposure to Baicha, Cloudbreak or Tianju Dihe may wish to preserve relevant onboarding, order, allocation, communications, funding, transaction-monitoring and client-instruction records and assess whether any regulatory notification or cooperation obligation is engaged.
• Boards and senior management of IPO-related businesses may wish to assess whether existing governance and escalation arrangements adequately cover suspected market manipulation, false-market risks and conflicts involving licensed representatives or connected companies.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new generally applicable rule. Under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules, the SFC directed SEHK to suspend Baicha dealings while its investigation continues. The SFC imposed asset-preservation restrictions on six brokers in relation to accounts associated with Sun Ran and eight related companies, and on 29 brokers in relation to accounts associated with Liu Haoran and two related entities.

Key dates

2025-03-28

The SFC issued its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the SMLR.

2025-05-23 Deadline

The consultation period for the proposed SMLR amendments closed.

2026-10-12

The SFC published consultation conclusions and announced that it would proceed with the amendments, subject to the legislative process.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams supporting IPO applicants should consider updating due-diligence, disclosure and governance processes to identify information that may need to be disclosed or remediated as a continuing post-listing condition.
• Listing applicants and sponsors should consider assessing whether proposed undertakings, disclosure controls and post-listing monitoring arrangements can satisfy conditions that may continue after listing.
• Listed issuers should consider strengthening escalation procedures for materially false, incomplete or misleading disclosures, and preparing documented remediation and disclosure plans that could support continued trading rather than suspension.
• Issuers and their advisers should consider monitoring the gazetted amendment text, Legislative Council negative-vetting materials and any SFC implementation guidance for differences from the consultation proposals and the final effective date.
• Brokers and market operators should consider reviewing controls for identifying and communicating SFC-imposed trading conditions, suspension directions and resumption conditions.
• Affected issuers should consider preserving decision records and legal analysis needed to evaluate a potential merits review before the Securities and Futures Appeals Tribunal once the expanded review jurisdiction takes effect.

What changed

The SMLR will be amended to expressly permit the SFC to impose conditions on listing applicants that continue to apply after listing, including continuing disclosure obligations. The SFC will also be able to impose conditions on listed issuers as an alternative to immediately suspending trading, with continued dealings conditional on compliance; potential conditions include clearer, more explicit and more complete disclosure to investors.

Key dates

2026-10-01

BaFin imposed the €1.2 million administrative fine on Volkswagen AG for breach of the MAR ad hoc disclosure obligation.

2026-10-09

BaFin published the enforcement notice describing the breach and the applicable maximum fine.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should reassess controls for identifying inside information in earnings forecasts, guidance changes and material deviations from analyst or market consensus, rather than limiting the assessment to finalized financial results.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish a documented escalation process linking finance, investor relations, legal and senior management whenever proposed guidance is materially above or below prevailing market expectations.
• Firms should consider maintaining contemporaneous evidence of the information’s precision, confidentiality, expected price sensitivity, the time the disclosure obligation arose, the decision-maker, and the reasons for selecting an ad hoc disclosure or any lawful delay under Article 17 MAR.
• Issuers should distinguish a MAR-compliant ad hoc announcement from an ordinary press release and verify that dissemination arrangements meet applicable MAR and national implementation requirements before publication.
• Firms should review whether earnings calls, websites, media releases, investor presentations or selective communications could disclose or confirm inside information before the ad hoc announcement, creating additional market-abuse and insider-control risks.
• German issuers may wish to review their procedures against the relevant German Securities Trading Act provisions and BaFin expectations, including controls for timely notification, publication and retention of ad hoc disclosures.
• Boards and senior managers should consider whether training and governance adequately address the possibility that an apparently routine forecast or guidance update becomes inside information when it materially diverges from market expectations.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule. BaFin applied the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 (Market Abuse Regulation), which requires issuers to inform the public as soon as possible of inside information that directly concerns them. BaFin expressly identified a significant deviation between financial expectations and market expectations as information capable of meeting the inside-information test.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2026-10-05

The CFTC Chairman announced the proposed Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM framework, and independent industry reporting identified the accompanying action as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for publication of the CTX/CAM ANPRM and calculate the 60-day comment period from the actual publication date rather than from the Chairman’s October 5 statement.
• Affected exchanges should map each product and customer flow against margin, leverage, financing, custody, settlement, and internal-ledger features to determine whether the activity could fall within the proposed CTX concept.
• State-licensed platforms may wish to assess the strategic and operational consequences of pursuing a CFTC registration pathway instead of relying solely on state money-transmitter licenses.
• Firms may wish to review governance, conflicts-of-interest controls, market surveillance, anti-manipulation controls, customer-asset segregation, operational resilience, disclosure, and recordkeeping capabilities against existing CFTC designated contract market and customer-protection expectations.
• Exchanges and service providers may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of Section 2(c)(2)(D), the treatment of fully paid transactions, the boundary between spot trading and financed transactions, and the interaction between CAM registration and state licensing.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to inventory crypto assets and classify them consistently with the referenced joint CFTC-SEC interpretation, while preserving separate analysis for assets that may constitute securities or fall outside the proposed framework.
• U.S.-facing offshore platforms should reassess territorial exposure and customer-access controls because the proposal may create a clearer federal compliance pathway without eliminating potential CFTC jurisdiction over unregistered or fraudulent activity.

What changed

The CFTC is proposing to use its existing Commodity Exchange Act authority, including Section 2(c)(2)(D), to develop a purpose-built framework for crypto asset transactions and markets. Regulation CTX would address retail crypto transactions involving margin, leverage, or financing. Regulation CAM would establish a tailored category of CFTC-registered crypto asset market, apparently as a specialized form of designated contract market, for exchanges offering those transactions.

Key dates

2026-10-05

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium and publicly described the CFTC-SEC crypto-asset classification framework and the shift toward formal crypto market regulation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory each supported token and document its likely classification under the five-category framework, including the facts supporting treatment as a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, stablecoin, or digital security.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether their products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including transactions involving margin, leverage, financing, or other arrangements that may require execution on or registration with a CFTC-registered venue.
• Crypto exchanges and trading platforms may wish to assess whether their activities could require DCM registration, a future crypto-asset-market registration, SEC registration, or multiple registrations depending on the asset and service provided.
• Issuers and platforms may wish to preserve evidence concerning network functionality, decentralization, token utility, marketing, purchaser expectations, transfer restrictions, and the separation of a crypto asset from any investment contract.
• Firms may wish to maintain controls addressing customer-asset segregation, custody, conflicts of interest, orderly trading, market surveillance, anti-manipulation, recordkeeping, and AML obligations, because the speech criticizes state money-transmission licensing as insufficient to provide federal market protections.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the CFTC and SEC rulemaking dockets and distinguish the Chairman's personal views, the joint interpretation, proposed rules, and any final rules or effective compliance dates.
• U.S. and offshore groups serving U.S. customers may wish to reassess their territorial and solicitation controls because the policy direction is intended to offer a federal pathway without eliminating the risk of CFTC or SEC jurisdiction over offshore conduct.

What changed

The Chairman described a joint CFTC-SEC interpretation that classifies crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The interpretation reportedly provides that digital commodities, digital collectibles, and digital tools are generally not securities; stablecoins may in some circumstances be securities; and digital securities remain subject to the federal securities laws.

Key dates

2026-10-05

CFTC published Release 9307-26 announcing the ANPRM and beginning consultation on a potential framework for crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA Section 2(c)(2)(D), particularly where crypto assets are leveraged, margined, financed, or embedded in derivatives or perpetual-style products.
• Firms should consider mapping their customer-facing crypto activities, order execution arrangements, custody model, financing terms, liquidation processes, conflicts, market-abuse controls, and consumer disclosures against the issues identified in the ANPRM.
• Potential commenters may wish to prepare submissions addressing the scope of CTXs, the proposed treatment of spot versus financed transactions, appropriate registration and supervisory requirements, and the operational feasibility of a crypto asset market category.
• Designated contract markets and prospective applicants should consider assessing whether existing governance, surveillance, listing, liquidity, technology, and risk-management controls could support a future crypto asset market registration framework.
• Firms may wish to preserve evidence of existing controls and industry practices that they regard as effective, because the CFTC is specifically seeking information on crypto-specific contextual guidance and compliance practices.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the ANPRM publication and calculate the 60-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the October 5 press release.
• Firms should continue complying with currently applicable CEA, CFTC, securities, commodities, consumer-protection, AML, and state requirements because the ANPRM does not replace or suspend existing obligations.

What changed

The CFTC has opened a consultation process and is considering future rules referred to in market commentary as Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM). The ANPRM seeks views on preventing abusive practices in crypto asset markets and CTXs, providing crypto-specific context on compliance requirements and industry practices that the Commission considers best practices, and codifying a subcategory of designated contract market registration for crypto asset markets.

Key dates

2026-10-02

CP26/34 consultation opened and the FCA published the consultation paper and draft implementation materials.

2026-11-06 Deadline

Deadline for responses to CP26/34.

2027-04-03

FCA target date for publication of the final Transaction Reporting User Pack.

2028-04-03 Deadline

New UK transaction reporting rules in MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15 come into force; FCA systems switch to the new schema and validation rules and UK MiFIR reporting formats cease to be accepted.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider submitting responses to CP26/34 by 6 November 2026, particularly on whether the proposed guidance and transitional provisions resolve practical implementation uncertainties.
• Compliance and regulatory reporting teams may wish to map current UK MiFIR reporting processes, fields, instrument populations, back-reporting logic and delegation arrangements against MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15.
• Firms should assess the impact of reducing the reporting-field population from 65 to 52, removing EU-only instruments and excluding qualifying FX derivatives, while separately validating that CFDs, spread bets and other retained instruments remain correctly captured.
• Technology and operations teams should review the FCA draft schema and validation rules, identify data-source and transformation changes, and begin controlled testing before the 3 April 2028 cutover.
• Firms should plan for parallel controls over transaction reports, instrument reference data and order book data during migration, including reconciliation, exception management, resubmission and audit-trail requirements.
• Firms considering conditional single-sided reporting should assess counterparty eligibility, reliance controls, data-quality monitoring, contractual arrangements and fallback procedures before changing reporting responsibilities.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish the three-year default back-reporting period from applicable record-retention obligations and maintain evidence supporting any decision to use the reduced lookback.
• Firms should monitor the FCA's planned Q1 2027 consultation and subsequent final Transaction Reporting User Pack, and align implementation governance, vendor deliverables and staff training to the final materials.

What changed

CP26/34 does not propose a new substantive reporting perimeter; it provides implementation detail for the rules introduced in PS26/15. The FCA is consulting on guidance explaining the new rules, transitional arrangements, amendments referring to MAR 13, MAR 14 and MAR 15, and the migration of relevant existing Level 3 Materials into a new Transaction Reporting User Pack.

Key dates

2026-01-19

The Public Offers and Admissions to Trading Regulations 2024 regime came into effect; PMB 66 finalises related Knowledge Base guidance.

2026-09-01

Revised FRC Third Country Auditor directions took effect, temporarily permitting certain qualifying Stock Connect audits of Chinese-registered entities to use Chinese Standards on Auditing.

2026-09-30

The FCA published Primary Market Bulletin No. 66 and finalised Technical Notes 619.3 and 321.5.

2026-10-28

Deadline for comments on proposed Technical Notes 803.1 and 801.5 and proposed deletion of Technical Note 802.3.

2027-01-01

UK Sustainability Reporting Standards-based UK Listing Rules requirements apply to accounting periods beginning on or after this date; Scope 3 and non-climate S1 transitional deferrals may apply.

2027-03-18

FCA operational incident and third-party reporting rules in PS26/2 come into force.

2028-01-01

The FCA expects the first reporting cycle affected by the new sustainability disclosure framework to occur in 2028, depending on the issuer's financial year.

Suggested considerations

• Issuers and advisers should reassess prospectus working capital models to determine whether each uncommitted facility can reasonably be treated as available for the entire working capital period, including under the reasonable worst-case scenario.
• Where uncommitted facilities are relied upon, firms should document the directors' assessment, the assumptions and the accompanying prospectus disclosure required by Guidelines 33.1 and 33.2 of Technical Note 619.3.
• Firms should test all risk factors, liquidity disclosures and business-plan assumptions for consistency with a clean working capital statement and consider a qualified statement where the prospectus describes risks fundamentally inconsistent with clean working capital.
• Sponsors, reporting accountants and legal advisers should update working capital checklists, verification procedures, prospectus precedents and review controls for Technical Notes 619.3 and 321.5.
• Listed companies should prepare for UK Sustainability Reporting Standards and the UK Listing Rules changes applying to accounting periods beginning on or after 2027-01-01 by identifying material sustainability risks and opportunities, reviewing governance and controls, and planning for the Scope 3 and non-climate S1 transitional deferrals.
• Issuers should maintain a documented, case-by-case process for assessing whether a cyber incident or vulnerability is inside information under Article 7 UK MAR, whether disclosure is required under Article 17(1), and whether delay under Article 17(4) remains justified and confidential.
• Firms should monitor cyber incidents after initial containment for new inside information concerning operational impact, duration, remediation costs, protection costs, reputational effects or changes to financial outlook, and should document information-sharing with authorities under Articles 10 and 17(8) UK MAR.
• Relevant firms should familiarise themselves with the operational incident and third-party reporting framework in PS26/2 ahead of its 2027-03-18 commencement.

What changed

Technical Note 619.3 now permits an issuer to take financing under certain uncommitted facilities into account when assessing working capital for the entire working capital period, where the directors judge that the facilities can be considered available throughout that period. A clean working capital statement may then be issued, provided the prospectus includes appropriate disclosure alongside the statement, including the relevant basis-of-preparation information and the fact that uncommitted facilities were taken into account.

Key dates

2026-08-27

JFSA published the revision and added Question 7 to the Q&A on Financial Instruments Business.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify all overseas-listed ETFs distributed or made available to Japanese customers and isolate products with a single Japanese-company equity exposure and leveraged or inverse performance objectives.
• Compliance teams may wish to suspend onboarding, marketing, solicitation, and new sales of affected products pending a documented legal and compliance assessment of the revised Question 7 and any follow-up JFSA communications.
• Firms should review whether existing distribution arrangements, product lists, customer disclosures, suitability controls, and overseas-product filing processes remain defensible in light of the JFSA’s public-interest position.
• Broker-dealers should assess whether affected products can remain accessible on an execution-only basis, including the risk that continued availability could be viewed as distribution or otherwise inconsistent with the JFSA’s stated view.
• Firms should obtain product-level information on the reference asset, leverage or inverse multiple, daily reset methodology, derivatives and rebalancing arrangements, listing venue, and Japanese investor access channels.
• Market surveillance and product-governance teams may wish to evaluate whether distribution of affected products could contribute to volatility, disorderly trading, or concerns about price formation in the Japanese underlying shares.
• Senior management should document escalation, inventory decisions, customer communications, and any decision to close or restrict positions, while monitoring for amendments to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act framework, supervisory guidelines, or additional JFSA expectations.

What changed

The JFSA added Question 7 to its Q&A on Financial Instruments Business. The revised guidance expresses the JFSA’s view that distributing overseas single-stock leveraged ETFs whose underlying assets are shares of Japanese companies is not in the public interest because the products may amplify fluctuations in the prices of the underlying shares listed on Japanese exchanges and may significantly affect price formation in Japan’s financial markets.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.

Key dates

2026-08-19

CFTC issued Release 9286-26 and announced the request for comment on listing compute derivatives contracts.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether the firm has direct or indirect exposure to compute cash markets, proposed compute futures, perpetual futures, benchmark administration, clearing, brokerage, or related trading activity.
• Firms considering submitting comments should assess the CFTC questions concerning cash-market size and liquidity, contract specifications, price formation, benchmark representativeness, settlement and rollover mechanics, manipulation scenarios, customer protection, and the risks of perpetual contracts.
• Potential contract venues and intermediaries should consider documenting how existing CFTC requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38 could apply to product submission, exchange oversight, market surveillance, position management, reporting, risk management, and customer funds.
• Trading and surveillance functions may wish to evaluate potential abusive strategies involving GPU capacity reservations, cloud allocation, data-centre outages, energy constraints, benchmark inputs, wash trading, spoofing, corners, squeezes, and manipulation of physical or reference markets.
• Firms should monitor the Federal Register and Regulations.gov for the publication date, final comment deadline, any technical corrections, and subsequent CFTC guidance or contract-approval filings.
• Market participants may wish to avoid treating the press release or request for comment as evidence that compute derivatives are already approved or that a reported exchange launch date is assured.
• Governance teams may wish to assign ownership across legal, commodities compliance, market surveillance, model risk, technology risk, procurement, and business teams because compute derivatives would connect financial-market controls with operational characteristics of cloud and data-centre markets.

What changed

The CFTC opened a public consultation under RIN 3038-AF77 concerning compute cash markets and potential compute derivatives contracts. The request seeks information on market size, liquidity, contract design, market oversight, manipulation risks, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, and is associated with potential amendments or application of the CFTC framework in 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38. It does not itself approve a compute futures contract, authorize an exchange to list one, impose new compliance obligations, or establish a final regulatory position.

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-06

CFTC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50926.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposal must be received by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current affiliate structures involving FCMs, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and trading affiliates to identify where the proposal would create new disclosure, surveillance, or conflict-management obligations.
• Firms may wish to map any shared personnel, technology, office space, or information flows between affiliated entities and assess whether additional controls would be needed to protect regulatory impartiality.
• Market-regulation and legal teams may wish to assess whether existing board, committee, and disciplinary-panel processes would satisfy the proposed independence and conflict-management expectations.
• FCMs may wish to inventory current disclosures to customers and counterparties and determine whether additional affiliate-relationship disclosures would be needed if the rule is finalized.
• Affected entities may wish to prepare comment letters before the 2026-10-05 deadline if they want to influence the final scope of the proposal.

What changed

The proposal would amend CFTC regulations in Parts 1, 37, 38, and 39, including regulations 1.52 and 1.55, to strengthen oversight of affiliated entities. For FCMs, it would add requirements around disclosure of affiliate relationships with SEFs, DCMs, or DCOs, and it would adjust SRO and DSRO financial-surveillance requirements for affiliate FCMs.

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

- Potential adoption of final rules on affiliations requirements, depending on the volume and content of comments and Commission deliberations

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

- Federal Register publication date of the NPRM on affiliations (the comment deadline will run for 60 days from this publication; firms should monitor the Federal Register and CFTC website to confirm the exact date)

30 July 2026

- CFTC issues press release announcing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on affiliations among CFTC‑regulated entities and indicates that comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

- End of public comment period on the proposed amendments to Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55 concerning affiliations and vertically integrated market structures

Suggested considerations

• Identify and map all affiliate relationships involving CFTC‑regulated entities within your group (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, SD/MSP, trading entities, market makers) and document how roles and control relationships could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing governance, conflicts‑of‑interest, information‑barrier, and supervision frameworks against the anticipated principles‑based expectations for vertically integrated structures under Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance board‑level and committee‑level oversight arrangements for affiliated entities to ensure independent decision‑making on listing, clearing, rule enforcement, membership, and client treatment where affiliates are involved.
• Assess current customer risk disclosures, including those required under regulation 1.55 for FCMs, to determine whether affiliate relationships and related conflicts are adequately described, and prepare draft revisions that could be implemented if the new requirements are finalized.
• Engage legal, compliance, and business stakeholders for each affected entity (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, trading entity) to prepare a coordinated comment letter to the CFTC explaining operational impacts, potential unintended consequences, and recommendations on specific rule language.

What changed

• - Introduces principles‑based requirements for vertically integrated market structures involving affiliations between derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution...
• Amends Part 37 to set additional governance, conflict‑management, and structural requirements for swap execution facilities where the SEF is affiliated with an intermediary or trading entity.
• Amends Part 38 to impose enhanced conflict‑of‑interest and self‑regulatory safeguards for designated contract markets that are affiliated with futures commission merchants or proprietary trading...
• Amends Part 39 to clarify and strengthen requirements on derivatives clearing organizations in group structures where the DCO is affiliated with intermediaries or other market participants, including...
• Amends regulation 1.52 (accounts and records; FCM supervisory requirements) to reflect the heightened expectations placed on futures commission merchants that are part of vertically integrated...

Key dates

31 December 2023

(assumed financial year end for 2023) – End of the 2023 financial year for Leo International Precision Health AG, starting the four‑month period for the annual financial information announcement

30 April 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the announcement stating from which date and at which web address the 2023 annual financial information is made publicly available (four months after year‑end)

30 June 2024

– Latest permissible date for publishing the half‑yearly financial report for the first half of the 2024 financial year (three months after the end of the reporting period, assuming 31 March 2024 as period end)

08 July 2026 Deadline

– BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €20,000 on Leo International Precision Health AG for failure to publish the required annual announcement for 2023 and the half‑yearly financial report for 2024 within the prescribed periods

30 July 2026

– Public announcement by BaFin of the enforcement measure and fine against Leo International Precision Health AG

Suggested considerations

• Map all WpHG‑related periodic reporting obligations (annual, half‑yearly, and any interim or ad‑hoc requirements) into a documented compliance calendar with responsible owners and system reminders well ahead of statutory deadlines.
• Implement a formal procedure to prepare, approve, and publish “Hinweisbekanntmachungen” that clearly specify the date and internet address of annual financial information, ensuring publication before the first public availability of the annual report and within four months of financial year‑end.
• Establish controls to guarantee that annual financial information is published both in the Company Register and on the issuer’s website, and that these publications are synchronised with the required announcements.
• Design and enforce a process for producing and publishing half‑yearly financial reports within three months after the end of each reporting period, including clear timelines for drafting, audit/review (where relevant), management approval, and technical website publication.
• Conduct a gap analysis of current financial reporting and disclosure procedures against WpHG requirements to identify any missing steps, unclear responsibilities, or weaknesses in escalation mechanisms for imminent deadline breaches.

What changed

• - Issuers domiciled in Germany with securities admitted to trading on an organised market in Germany must publish an announcement (“Hinweisbekanntmachung”) specifying the exact date and internet...
• The announcement on annual financial information must be published no later than four months after the end of each financial year and must be issued before the first public availability of the...
• Annual financial information must be made publicly available on the internet in addition to its disclosure in the Company Register (Unternehmensregister), and the announcement obligation relates...
• Issuers must publish a half‑yearly financial report no later than three months after the end of each reporting period.
• Failure to publish financial reports or the required announcements, or failure to do so within the prescribed periods, constitutes a contravention of the WpHG and exposes the issuer to administrative...

Key dates

27 April 2012

- CISIAM became licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance to carry on Type 4 (advising on securities) and Type 9 (asset management) regulated activities

03 June 2013

- CISIAM obtained a licence to carry on Type 5 (advising on futures contracts) regulated activity

August 2019

- Start of the period during which CISIAM’s failures as fund manager occurred in relation to the Tahoe Life‑related private fund

September 2020

- End of the period during which CISIAM’s failures in managing the private fund took place

Suggested considerations

• Review and update private fund governance frameworks to ensure investment approvals require independent investment discretion, documented due diligence, and explicit challenge of investor‑driven proposals, particularly those originating from client senior management.
• Implement or enhance written procedures to identify “dubious arrangements”, including criteria such as unnecessary structural complexity, unclear commercial rationale, additional costs or risks, related‑party exposure, and potential concealment of asset movements or connected transactions.
• Establish a mandatory escalation and approval process for complex or investor‑driven transactions, requiring risk, compliance, and senior management sign‑off before execution and documented reasoning for proceeding.
• Conduct a gap analysis of all existing private funds to confirm that current and past investments comply with the funds’ investment restrictions and stated objectives, and remediate any breaches including client notification and corrective actions where appropriate.
• Strengthen risk management frameworks for private funds by defining key risk types, setting monitoring thresholds, and implementing periodic risk reporting to senior management and the board.

What changed

• - Asset managers must maintain and apply documented procedures and controls to identify whether proposed private fund arrangements or transactions are dubious, including where structures are...
• Where a proposed arrangement or transaction is assessed as dubious, asset managers may only proceed once they are satisfied that concerns and red flags have been sufficiently addressed and evidenced.
• Fund managers are expected to exercise independent investment discretion and cannot rely solely on investor‑driven proposals, especially from influential client personnel such as chief investment...
• Asset managers must ensure that all fund investments comply with the fund’s stated investment restrictions and align with its stated investment objectives, with documented controls to verify...
• Firms must implement effective measures to identify, manage, and continuously monitor the risks to which private funds are exposed, including counterparty, concentration, structural, and...

Key dates

01 November 2023 Deadline

– Start of the period during which BSSIHK allowed wash trades to be executed due to inadequate internal controls

March 2024

– BSSIHK introduced a pre‑trade interception arrangement for wash trades, which the SFC later found to be insufficient because it relied mainly on manual intervention and only after repeated wash trade instances

13 September 2025

– End of the period examined by the SFC during which 1,021 pairs of wash trades were executed through BSSIHK client accounts

Suggested considerations

• Review existing trade surveillance frameworks (both pre‑trade and post‑trade) to ensure they can reliably identify wash trades, including same‑account and related‑account trades with no change in beneficial ownership.
• Implement or enhance automated pre‑trade controls that can detect and automatically block or hold suspected wash trades before execution, rather than relying primarily on manual dealer intervention after the fact.
• Re‑design alert logic so that each suspicious wash trade or pair of trades is counted as a separate event, including multiple events in the same client account on the same day, and ensure escalation thresholds reflect this.
• Calibrate surveillance parameters to cover all relevant product types, including Hong Kong‑listed stocks, warrants and other structured products commonly used by clients.
• Document and update internal policies and procedures to explicitly prohibit wash trades, define wash trading typologies, and describe detection, escalation and blocking processes.

What changed

• - Firms conducting Type 1, 4 or 7 regulated activities are expected to maintain both pre‑trade and post‑trade surveillance capable of detecting wash trades and other manipulative patterns, rather...
• Pre‑trade interception controls that depend primarily on manual intervention (e.g. dealer intervention after alerts) are deemed inadequate where the controls allow suspicious trades to proceed until...
• Surveillance logic must treat multiple suspicious trades in the same client account on the same day as separate events, rather than aggregating them into one “instance,” to ensure repeated misconduct...
• Trade surveillance tools and procedures must be capable of detecting wash trades across a wide universe of instruments, including both equities and structured products such as warrants.
• SFC has reaffirmed that failure to maintain adequate and effective internal controls to monitor and detect wash trades constitutes a breach of the SFC Code of Conduct and is considered contrary to...

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Key dates

August 2025

- The relevant shareholder failed to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period after crossing thresholds in the issuer

15 July 2026 Deadline

- BaFin imposed two administrative fines of €55,000 each on the natural person for non‑compliance with voting rights notification obligations under sections 33 et seq. WpHG

23 July 2026

- BaFin published the anonymised enforcement measure, indicating that an appeal against the administrative fine order may be lodged

Suggested considerations

• Map all shareholdings in German‑listed issuers (including derivatives and instruments conferring voting rights) against the WpHG notification thresholds and maintain a central register of current and potential reportable positions.
• Implement or enhance automated monitoring tools and internal controls to detect in real time when voting rights in a German‑listed issuer are about to reach, exceed, or fall below a threshold, triggering a four‑trading‑day notification period.
• Establish a clear, documented procedure for preparing and submitting voting rights notifications to both the issuer and BaFin, including responsible owners, escalation paths, and backup arrangements for absences or system outages.
• Review and update internal policies, shareholder disclosure manuals, and client onboarding documentation to explicitly reflect the four‑trading‑day deadline and the requirement to notify both the issuer and BaFin when thresholds are crossed.
• Train front‑office, trading, corporate actions, and legal/compliance staff (including those outside Germany) on German voting rights notification rules, focusing on threshold levels, calculation principles (including aggregation across entities and instruments), and timelines.

What changed

• - BaFin reiterates that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin when their voting rights in an issuer reach, exceed, or fall below specified thresholds, in line with sections 33 et seq.
• The publication confirms that the notification must be made within four trading days from the triggering event (i.e. crossing of a relevant voting rights threshold).
• BaFin highlights that failure to notify, or to notify within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period, constitutes an administrative offence under the WpHG.
• The notice confirms that BaFin can impose administrative fines on natural persons for breaches of the voting rights notification obligation up to a statutory maximum of €2 million.
• The case illustrates BaFin’s willingness to impose multiple fines for multiple notification failures arising from separate threshold crossings or reporting obligations within a given period.

Key dates

28 March 2024

- EU‑level PFOF prohibition under revised MiFIR enters into force, generally banning payment for order flow in the EU, subject to transitional national exemptions

30 June 2026

- German national exemption allowing PFOF for orders from in‑country clients to in‑country firms expires; after this date no new orders may rely on the exemption

01 July 2026

- Full application of the PFOF ban to German clients and German‑authorised firms; credit institutions and investment firms are prohibited from accepting any third‑party payments or benefits for forwarding client orders, and BaFin’s supervisory statement takes practical effect

22 July 2026

- BaFin publishes its supervisory statement specifying rules for neobrokers and other firms on how to comply with the PFOF ban and explaining ESMA’s interpretative decisions and consumer impacts

Suggested considerations

• Identify and map all current remuneration streams linked to order routing, including explicit PFOF arrangements, volume‑based rebates, and other benefits from market makers or venues, and cease any arrangements that constitute PFOF or similar third‑party inducements for forwarding orders.
• Review and update MiFID II / MiFIR inducement policies to explicitly classify PFOF and similar execution‑related rebates as prohibited benefits, ensuring no reliance on inducement disclosure or quality‑enhancement arguments to justify them.
• Amend best‑execution policies and procedures to remove any consideration of third‑party payments from venues or market makers in the execution‑venue selection process and to emphasise price, cost, speed, likelihood of execution, and other MiFID II best‑execution factors.
• Conduct a conflicts‑of‑interest assessment to identify any residual incentives or arrangements that could compromise the duty to act in the best interests of clients in order routing, and implement mitigation measures or remove such conflicts where necessary.
• Redesign pricing and revenue models for neobroker and low‑fee brokerage services to replace PFOF‑funded “zero‑commission” offerings with compliant alternatives, such as explicit commissions, spreads, subscription fees, or other transparent charges.

What changed

• - Credit institutions and investment firms are no longer permitted to accept payments, fees, commissions or non‑monetary benefits from third parties (e.g.
• The prohibition applies to the forwarding of both retail and professional client orders and covers any form of economic benefit linked to routing orders to a specific counterparty or venue.
• Germany’s previous use of the MiFIR national exemption for domestic clients has ended; there is no longer any national carve‑out for PFOF in relation to clients resident or established in Germany.
• BaFin’s supervisory statement specifies how firms must interpret and apply the EU‑level PFOF ban in practice, including alignment with ESMA’s interpretative decisions on the scope of prohibited...
• The stated regulatory objective is to improve the quality of client order execution and prevent conflicts of interest arising from execution venues or market makers incentivising brokers to route...

Key dates

16 March 2026

- Judge Margaret A. Ryan’s resignation as Director of the Division of Enforcement becomes effective, and Principal Deputy Director Sam Waldon is named Acting Director of Enforcement

Early April 2026

- David Woodcock is named permanent Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Judge Ryan

31 July 2026

- Principal Deputy Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon departs the SEC after more than 14 years at the agency; his successor assumes the role of Principal Deputy Director

Suggested considerations

• Review and update enforcement‑risk assessments to reflect the forthcoming change in SEC Enforcement Division Principal Deputy Director, with particular focus on core fraud, insider trading, and accounting‑related risks.
• Re‑evaluate internal investigation, Wells process, and SEC engagement protocols to ensure they align with current Enforcement Manual practices and anticipate any refinements under the new Principal Deputy Director.
• Brief senior management, boards, and audit committees on the SEC enforcement leadership transition and its implications for prioritization of accounting, disclosure, and gatekeeper cases, particularly in light of the SOX‑focused enforcement unit.
• Reassess crypto and digital asset exposure, including ongoing or threatened SEC matters, to account for potential shifts in enforcement posture under new leadership while maintaining preparedness for fraud‑focused actions involving retail investors.
• Reinforce insider trading surveillance, market‑abuse monitoring, and controls around material non‑public information, reflecting the Enforcement Division’s continued emphasis on traditional trading‑related misconduct.

What changed

• - The SEC has formally announced that Principal Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement Sam Waldon will leave the agency effective 31 July 2026, ending more than 14 years of service at the SEC.
• The Enforcement Division will have a new Principal Deputy Director (named in the release), who will assume responsibility for overseeing day‑to‑day enforcement operations, supervision of regional and...
• Waldon’s departure follows his recent tenure as Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director during a period of strategic restructuring of the Enforcement Division, including creation of multiple...
• The transition occurs against the backdrop of earlier Commission decisions to rescind delegation of formal order authority to the Enforcement Director, returning formal order approvals to the...
• Under Waldon’s leadership, the Division emphasized “quality over quantity” cases, focusing on traditional “core” areas (insider trading, accounting and disclosure fraud, market manipulation,...

Key dates

10 July 2026

- BaFin imposes administrative fines totaling €187,500 on Brown Capital Management LLC for failures to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period under WpHG

22 July 2026 Deadline

- BaFin publicly announces the administrative fine order and reiterates the four‑trading‑day notification deadline and the legal framework for voting rights notifications

TBD Deadline

- Deadline for Brown Capital Management LLC to lodge an appeal against the administrative fine order, in line with German administrative procedure and appeal timelines (not specified in the publication)

Ongoing

- For all shareholders subject to WpHG, the obligation persists to notify the issuer and BaFin within four trading days whenever relevant thresholds are reached, exceeded or fallen below

Suggested considerations

• Map all portfolios and mandates to identify direct and indirect holdings of shares and related instruments in German issuers subject to WpHG voting rights notification rules.
• Implement or enhance an automated monitoring tool that aggregates positions at group level (including funds, managed accounts and derivatives) and flags when WpHG thresholds are approached or crossed.
• Review and document internal procedures to ensure that notifications to affected issuers and to BaFin are drafted, approved and submitted within the four‑trading‑day statutory deadline.
• Ensure that legal and compliance teams fully understand the WpHG threshold framework (including initial thresholds and subsequent incremental thresholds, and attribution rules) and maintain up‑to‑date written guidance and checklists.
• Establish a clear allocation of responsibilities between portfolio management, trading, operations, legal and compliance for detecting threshold crossings and preparing notification forms.

What changed

• - BaFin has formally confirmed an enforcement action where late or missing voting rights notifications under sections 33 et seq.
• The publication reiterates that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below certain statutory thresholds in...
• BaFin explicitly links failures to notify or late notifications to administrative offences under the WpHG, with potential fines for legal persons of up to €10 million or up to 5% of total turnover,...
• The communication reflects BaFin’s continued focus on the proper functioning and attractiveness of EU capital markets, framing voting rights notification compliance as a core transparency tool rather...
• The case signals that BaFin is prepared to sanction non‑German firms (such as US‑based Brown Capital Management LLC) when their holdings in German issuers trigger WpHG thresholds and the resulting...

Key dates

22 July 2026

– AFM/AMF joint press release and position paper “From design to delivery – five enablers for effective European supervision” published, formally articulating the five enablers for centralised EU‑level supervision under the MISP

TBD (MISP legislative timeline)

– Specific dates for adoption and phased implementation of the Market Integration and Supervision Package will follow the EU legislative process; firms should anticipate a multi‑year transition with key milestones likely aligned to ESMA governance and funding reforms and initial scopes of direct supervision

Suggested considerations

• Review and update the firm’s supervisory engagement strategy to include structured, proactive engagement with ESMA (not just NCAs), anticipating more direct interactions, thematic reviews, and data requests at EU level.
• Assess current risk‑assessment and risk‑reporting frameworks to ensure they are compatible with a risk‑based and adaptive supervisory approach, including the ability to demonstrate how your firm identifies, measures, and mitigates emerging risks and new business models.
• Conduct a gap analysis of data architecture and regulatory reporting, focusing on data quality, standardisation, and ability to feed into centralised EU data hubs; plan upgrades to systems, controls, and data governance to support ESMA‑level data centralisation.
• Prepare for potential changes in supervisory levies and funding, by modelling the impact of EU‑level ESMA fees in addition to national contributions and incorporating them into medium‑term budgeting and pricing strategies.
• Review governance arrangements, including board oversight, senior management responsibilities, and internal escalation processes, to ensure they can meet higher expectations of independent, transparent, and accountable governance under an ESMA‑centric model.

What changed

• - ESMA is explicitly positioned as the central supervisory authority for selected capital‑markets activities, with national competent authorities (NCAs) expected to operate within a more formalised...
• Supervisory objectives are reframed towards risk‑based and adaptive supervision, meaning firms should expect more differentiated supervisory intensity based on risk profile, business model, and...
• The paper supports proportionate and transparent funding for ESMA, indicating a future where firms may be subject to EU‑level supervisory levies or fee structures in addition to national regimes,...
• AFM and AMF call for independent, transparent, and accountable EU‑level supervisory governance, foreshadowing changes to ESMA’s decision‑making bodies, oversight processes, and accountability...
• Data centralisation is identified as a core enabler, implying a stronger move towards EU‑wide data hubs, harmonised reporting formats, and central access for ESMA to transaction, position, and...

Key dates

2011-07-22

CFTC adopted Part 20 as a temporary large trader reporting framework for physical commodity swaps.

2026-07-21

Final order effective date; routine Part 20 reporting requirements become ineffective and unenforceable.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that Part 20 daily and event-based filing workflows are disabled or archived as of the effective date.
• Firms may wish to retain the underlying books, records, and futures-equivalent conversion methodologies required for special-call production under § 20.6 and related retained provisions.
• Operational teams may wish to map any legacy Part 20 controls to SDR, Parts 43 and 45, and Part 150 processes to avoid duplicate reporting.
• Firms may wish to review document retention and response procedures so that special-call requests can be answered promptly if the CFTC seeks underlying records.
• Compliance functions may wish to update internal regulatory inventories and policies to reflect that Part 20 routine reporting is no longer enforceable, while recordkeeping obligations remain.

What changed

The order renders the routine position-reporting requirements of Part 20 ineffective and unenforceable, so clearing organizations, clearing members, and swap dealers are no longer required to file the daily and event-based reports previously required under §§ 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, and related reporting provisions. The CFTC is retaining, under § 20.9(b), the recordkeeping and special-call provisions, including the obligation to keep records of paired swaps and swaptions and the methods used to convert positions into futures equivalents and to produce those records on request.

Key dates

2025-07-25

CME requested exemptive relief from CFTC regulation 41.25(c)

2026-07-10

SEC granted CME exemptive relief, subject to heightened listing standards

2026-07-15

CME submitted an updated request to the CFTC incorporating the SEC-conditioned listing standards

2026-07-16

CFTC order became applicable

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date of the CFTC order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any proposed or existing single-stock futures products rely on opening-price settlement and whether the CME order changes product design assumptions.
• Firms may wish to confirm that the relevant underlying securities satisfy CME’s heightened liquidity and market-capitalization listing standards before marketing, clearing, or supporting these contracts.
• Market surveillance teams may wish to assess whether surveillance procedures need updating for closing-price settlement mechanics and end-of-day manipulation risks.
• Operational teams may wish to align settlement, market data, and surveillance processes with the product’s closing-price final settlement methodology.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to track the separate SEC and CFTC conditions, since CME’s ability to proceed depends on both regimes.

What changed

The order exempts CME from CFTC regulation 41.25(c), which generally requires the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. The relief is granted under regulation 41.25(e), which permits exemptions on specified terms and conditions when consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers.

Key dates

16 July 2026

- BaFin imposes a €240,000 administrative fine on TeamViewer SE for violating Article 17(1) MAR by failing to disclose a cyberattack without delay

20 July 2026

- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice detailing the breach, the nature of the inside information (cyberattack), and the applicable fine range under MAR

Suggested considerations

• Conduct an immediate review of incident classification frameworks to ensure that significant cyberattacks are systematically assessed for MAR “inside information” criteria, including likely price impact.
• Update ad hoc disclosure policies and procedures to explicitly cover cyber incidents, including clear triggers, escalation paths, and decision-making timelines for potential MAR disclosures.
• Implement or enhance cross-functional incident response governance so that Security / IT, Legal, Compliance and Investor Relations jointly evaluate cyber events for ad hoc disclosure obligations.
• Review and, where necessary, revise Board and senior management training to cover MAR Article 17 obligations in the context of cyber incidents and operational disruptions.
• Test existing “ad hoc announcement” workflows (including drafting, approval and publication mechanisms) to confirm the firm can publish inside information on cyberattacks “as soon as possible” in practice, including outside normal business hours.

What changed

• - BaFin has explicitly treated a material cyberattack on a listed software company as *inside information* that must be disclosed without delay under Article 17(1) MAR.
• The decision confirms that failure to publish inside information “as soon as possible” constitutes a contravention of subparagraph 1 of Article 17(1) MAR and is subject to administrative fines.
• BaFin reiterates that issuers based in Germany with securities traded on an organised market in Germany are subject to an ad hoc disclosure obligation for inside information.
• BaFin highlights that inside information includes precise, non-public information directly or indirectly relating to an issuer or its instruments, which would likely have a significant price effect...
• The enforcement action illustrates BaFin’s willingness to use its full MAR toolkit on disclosure failures, with potential maximum fines of €2.5 million or up to 2% of total revenue for similar...

Key dates

10 July 2026

– SFC publication date confirming the 17th high‑level enforcement cooperation meeting between the SFC and CSRC in Hong Kong and the focus on cross‑boundary enforcement and enhanced information exchange

Suggested considerations

• Review existing cross‑boundary business models, trading flows and client bases to identify areas where misconduct or control failures could trigger coordinated enforcement action by both the SFC and CSRC.
• Update enforcement‑facing compliance risk assessments to reflect heightened cross‑boundary enforcement cooperation, including the possibility of information sharing and parallel investigations by both regulators.
• Enhance incident escalation and regulatory engagement protocols to ensure that potential cross‑boundary issues (e.g. market manipulation, insider dealing, cross‑border fraud) are promptly identified and addressed with both Hong Kong and Mainland regulators where relevant.
• Review and, where necessary, strengthen surveillance and market‑abuse monitoring tools to capture cross‑market patterns (e.g. trading in Hong Kong linked to events or positions in Mainland markets).
• Ensure record‑keeping, trade data, client information and cross‑border communication logs are complete, accurate and retrievable, given the regulators’ focus on improving information exchange.

What changed

• - The SFC and CSRC reinforced their commitment to joint enforcement cooperation specifically targeting cross‑boundary crimes and misconduct that affect both Hong Kong and Mainland Chinese markets.
• Both regulators agreed to deepen discussions and coordination around recent major cross‑boundary enforcement cases, indicating more systematic case‑level collaboration and mutual assistance.
• The authorities explicitly prioritised enhancing mechanisms for information exchange, implying more frequent, timely and possibly more granular sharing of regulatory, supervisory and investigative...
• The meeting confirms that cross‑boundary enforcement and investor protection remain strategic enforcement priorities for both the SFC and CSRC, which will likely influence case selection, resource...
• The emphasis on improving enforcement effectiveness and deterrence signals a likely increase in coordinated investigations, simultaneous actions, and potential parallel sanctions in both...