ASIC v. UBS Securities (2017)

Settled

Checked against the primary document on October 3, 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, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. 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 (asic-ubs-securities-2017) by email

In June 2017 ASIC reported that UBS Securities Australia Limited had paid A$280,000 in two infringement notice penalties, A$140,000 each, issued by the Markets Disciplinary Panel: one over failures in its UBS PIN crossing system, the other over incorrect crossing confirmations and regulatory data. The matter is about crossing-system and disclosure compliance, not manipulation.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	ASIC
Release number	17-185MR
Date filed	2017-06-15
Status	settled
Criminal parallel	No
Defendants	UBS Securities Australia Limited (entity)
Techniques

What was ordered

Civil penalty: —
Disgorgement: —
Prejudgment interest: —
Total relief: —
Alleged gain: —
Penalty as published: A$280k

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. This regulator states penalties in AUD. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

the Australian Securities and Investments Commission announced this matter on June 15, 2017 as release 17-185MR. The respondents named are UBS Securities (0 individuals, 1 entity).

This matter concerns UBS's crossing system (UBS PIN) failing to deal fairly and in due turn with orders, incorrect disclosures to wholesale clients about execution venue and trading as principal, and incorrect regulatory data provided to market operators. The release's one mention of front running describes the risk that the trading-as-principal disclosure rule guards against, not a finding that UBS front ran anyone; this library does not tag the matter with any technique.

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 release.

Timeline

2017-06-15 ASIC media release

Primary documents

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

ASIC media release

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.