AMF France v. Company X (alleged momentum ignition, charges rejected, 2014)

Dismissed

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 5, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the French decision; an independent second reading of 60 of the AMF records agreed on every field for 54 and on the core fields for 59. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (amf-fr-san-2014-01-momentum-ignition-2014) by email

On 14 March 2014 the Commission des sanctions put a day-trading firm out of the case, rejecting the charge that large aggressive buy orders in Nicox and Théolia shares on four sessions in 2010, followed by quick sales, gave a misleading picture of demand. No sanction was imposed.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

The second section of the Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) decided the case on 14 March 2014. The decision is anonymised: the respondent appears as company X.

The notification of grievances alleged price manipulation in the shares of Nicox on 31 May and 2 June 2010 and of Théolia on 4 and 5 August 2010. On the AMF's case, X placed twelve aggressive and unusually large buy orders, up to 76 times the average size for Nicox and 41 times for Théolia, which it said raised prices directly and then lured other buyers, and then sold rapidly, reversing its position to profit from the rise. It also alleged many moderate aggressive buy orders kept up the impression of rising activity.

The Commission examined the volume, price effect, order pattern and position reversals together. It found that X had bought shares that were actually for sale, at or near the best offer, and then sold at the new best offer or near it, a pattern consistent with the speculative day-trading that was its business. It found that the reversals took place within an already rising trend, without a significant price change, and that the orders had a genuine purpose of buying. It concluded that the activity did not give false indications of demand and that manipulation was not established.

It put X out of the case, so no sanction was imposed, and ordered anonymised publication.

This record does not show whether the decision was challenged. The tag is of the conduct alleged, not found; the Commission did not find any manipulation.

This library tags the matter as momentum ignition. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the decision.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Momentum ignition — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-03-14 Commission des sanctions decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• AMF decision page
• Decision (PDF, French)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Record added October 5, 2026. submit a correction.