CFTC v. Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds Bank (benchmark submission rigging, 2014)

Settled

✓ 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-lloyds-banking-group-benchmark-submission-rigging-2014) by email

In 2014, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued a settled administrative order against Lloyds Banking Group and Lloyds Bank, alleging conduct this library classifies as benchmark submission rigging, cash vs derivatives schemes and price manipulation. The release records a civil penalty of $105 million. A parallel criminal matter is referenced in the release.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

$105m

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

$105m

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 July 29, 2014 as release 6966-14. The respondents named are Lloyds Banking Group plc and Lloyds Bank plc (0 individuals, 2 entities).

This library tags the matter as benchmark submission rigging, cash vs derivatives schemes and price manipulation, 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.

The relief recorded in our data is a civil monetary penalty of $105 million. Penalty and disgorgement are distinct: disgorgement returns the gain, while the penalty is punitive. We store them separately so that aggregate figures across the library are not double-counted.

The release references a parallel criminal proceeding. Where a criminal case exists, the civil and criminal outcomes are recorded separately, because they resolve on different standards of proof.

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.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 3 techniques 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.

• Benchmark submission rigging — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Cash versus derivatives schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2014-07-28 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.