MAS imposes S$100,000 penalty on Fuji shareholder for deceptive trading

[CityFarmer]

I wonder how it was discovered...

MAS imposes S$100,000 penalty on Fuji shareholder for deceptive trading

SINGAPORE - The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has taken civil penalty enforcement action against a substantial shareholder of Fuji Offset Plates Manufacturing for employing manipulative and deceptive methods to conduct trades.

The MAS said Mr Oh Kian Guan had used securities trading accounts maintained by various persons at several brokerages to conduct trades in the shares of Fuji between 1 July 2007 and 31 August 2008 for his own benefit.

http://www.todayonline.com/business/mas-...ve-trading

[opmi]

He was involved in dispute with other shareholders. Probably someone snitched or complained on him. Police don't catch if no one complained or tip-off.

Notice how long it takes to get charged and go for trials. Almost 5 years.

[pianist]

how did u know he was in dispute?

[opmi]

Sorry. Confused it with Falmac.

[pianist]

Checked e ar. He not in board or senior mgt. So this guy supposed to be in top twenty but declined. Why huh?

[opmi]

Looking at the share price in 2007. 20 cents to 80 cents. on low volume.
Likely to be caught by SGX mkt survillance. Probably ramping up the shares.

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=50...=undefined;

[pianist]

How to ramp the shares using his method?

[freedom]

have a few accounts, left hand to right hand; right hand to left hand. a few rounds plus release some news on some forums, other people will notice and continue to drive it higher.

make sure that no other substantial shareholders will sell and share is highly illiquid.

[smallcaps]

Some examples traits of deceptive trading from sgx rulebook:

http://rulebook.sgx.com/en/display/displ...nt_id=1866

3.1.8 Rule 13.8.2(8): Whether a Proposed Bid (Offer) is Higher (Lower) than the Previous Bid (Offer) but is to be Removed from the Market Before it is Executed.

This could indicate that the order is not genuine, especially where a distinctive pattern of such orders is observed. At the time the bid (offer) was made, the Trading Member or Trading Representative did not intend to buy (sell), but intended that the bid (offer) would not trade and would be cancelled. Sometimes, such orders are entered to induce buyers (sellers) into the market to facilitate the filling of an order on the other side of the market.

3.1.9 Rule 13.8.2(9): Whether the Volume or Size of the Proposed Transaction is Excessive Relative to Reasonable Expectations of the Depth and Liquidity of the Market at the Time.

This Rule does not restrict Trading Members and Trading Representatives trading significant volumes where there is a legitimate purpose for the transaction and where the transaction is executed in a proper manner. However, trading significant volumes with the purpose of controlling the price of a security or Futures Contract will amount to manipulative trading.

Example

A Trading Representative purchased substantial volume in a thinly traded counter, which accounted for a large proportion of the market volume, to establish a predetermined price. Sometimes, this may be followed by up-ticking the bid despite the absence of bona fide investor demand for the security or Futures Contract.

3.1.10 Rule 13.8.2(10): Whether the Proposed Buy (Sell) Order is Likely to Trade with the Entire Best Offer (Bid) Volume and Part of the Offer (Bid) at the Next Price Level.

If a customer regularly buys (sells) on the up-tick (down-tick) in the face of consistent selling (buying) pressure, the Trading Member or Trading Representative should query whether the customer is a bona fide purchaser (seller). Repetitive orders to clear the best offer (bid) volume, particularly within a short time, suggest that the Trading Member or Trading Representative might be attempting to break the market. The trading spikes or troughs were meant to excite the market and attract spectators to join in.

3.1.11 Rule 13.8.2(11): Whether the Proposed Buy (Sell) Order Forms Part of a Series of Orders that Successively and Consistently Increase (Decrease) the Price of the Security or Futures Contract.

If a customer places a sell order well above the best ask and one or more buy orders which would increase the price towards the customer's ask price, a Trading Member or Trading Representative should query the customer as to the strategy. It may be that the buy orders are intended to get the price running and facilitate the sale at the higher price. Illiquid securities or Futures Contract, in particular, are susceptible to this type of improper trading.

[pianist]

interesting..thanks for the sharing