简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Citigroup’s Brokerage Subsidiary to Pay £12.6M for Failure to Detect Market Abuse
Abstract:Citigroup Global Markets breached Article 16(2) of MAR, FCA's Principles for Businesses. The institutional brokerage firm has agreed to resolve the case, FCA says.

United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has fined Citigroup Global Markets, an indirect subsidiary of Citigroup Inc., £12,553,800 for breaching the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) trade surveillance requirements relating to the detection of market abuse.
Take Advantage of the Biggest Financial Event in London. This year we have expanded to new verticals in Online Trading, Fintech, Digital Assets, Blockchain, and Payments.
FCA, which announced the fine on Friday in a statement, said the institutional brokerage services company failed to properly implement the regulation.
As a result, the broker breached Article 16(2) of MAR and Principle 2 of the FCAs Principles for Businesses, the regulator added.
While Article 16(2) requires organizations involved in arranging or executing transactions in financial instruments to establish and maintain effective arrangements, systems, and procedures to detect and report potential market abuse, Principle 2 demands that “a firm must conduct its business with due skill, care, and diligence.”
“By failing to properly implement the MAR trade surveillance requirements, Citigroup Global Markets could not effectively monitor its trading activities for certain types of insider dealing and market manipulation,” FCA explained.
The watchdog further explained that Citigroup Global Markets flawed execution opened up gaps in its arrangements, systems, and procedures for additional trade surveillance.

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

Neotrades Review: Traders Claim Profit Cuts, False Assurances & Unfair Terms
Do you feel constant pressure from Neotrades to deposit your forex capital? Were you given a false assurance by the broker on recovering your trade losses? Have all your profits been wiped to ZERO on the Neotrades login? Does the Mauritius-based forex broker apply stringent terms and conditions for profit withdrawals? In this Neotrades review article, we have showcased these complaints. Read them below.

Thailand Strikes Back: Online Scam Losses Plunge ฿195M+
Thailand’s Anti-Cyber Scam Centre (ACSC) reported 392 fewer online scam cases and a 31.4% week-on-week drop in losses—over ฿195 million saved—driven by police suppression and public awareness. Authorities caution that syndicates are relocating and exploiting events (e.g., southern floods). While online purchase fraud remains most common, “reward transfer” scams now cause the highest losses, surpassing investment scams.

FXFlat Exposed: Traders Report Withdrawal Issues, High Slippage & Poor Customer Support Service
Making profits, but FXFlat is cancelling all of them? Do you constantly face losses due to slippage by the Germany-based forex broker? Is your forex trading account getting deactivated after making the FXFlat withdrawal request? Do you have to constantly deal with poor customer support issues? You are not alone! Many traders have openly expressed their frustration over these issues online. In this FXFlat review article, we have shared some of their complaints. Read on!

Deriv Review and Global Regulation Explained
Deriv is regulated in UAE, Labuan, Malta & offshore jurisdictions. Explore broker's licenses, regulation status, and trading platforms in 2025.
