CFTC v. Absa Bank, Ltd. (matched orders, 2014)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 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 (cftc-absa-bank-matched-orders-2014) by email

In September 2014, the CFTC settled charges against South African bank Absa Bank, Ltd., ordering a US$150,000 penalty for prearranged noncompetitive corn and soybean futures trades on the CBOT opposite FirstRand Bank.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$150k

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$150k

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 Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced this matter on September 25, 2014 as release 7013-14. The respondents named are Absa Bank, Ltd. (0 individuals, 1 entity).

The order finds that on several occasions between June 2009 and August 2011, employees of Absa and FirstRand agreed by phone the contract, quantity, price, direction and timing of trades before entering them on the CBOT, so the trades carried no price competition or market risk. The counterparties were two separate banks, so we classify this as matched orders rather than wash trading.

This library tags the matter as matched orders, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

A $150,000 civil monetary penalty, undertakings to strengthen controls, and a cease-and-desist order. FirstRand was sanctioned separately.

Absa consented to the order.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2014-09-25 CFTC release published

Primary documents

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

• CFTC release

The linked release is a work of the United States government and is not subject to copyright. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.