FCA v. Lee Bruce Stewart (benchmark submission rigging, 2015)
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.
In July 2015 the FCA prohibited former Rabobank trader Lee Stewart from performing any regulated function, after he pleaded guilty in the United States in March 2015 to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud over his attempts to manipulate U.S. dollar LIBOR between 2007 and 2009. No fine was imposed.
The record
| Agency | FCA |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2015-07-21 |
| Date resolved | 2015-07-21 |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: guilty plea (Lee Stewart (conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud)), U.S. court (not named in the notice), 2015-03-23 |
| Defendants | Lee Bruce Stewart |
| Techniques | Benchmark submission rigging , Price manipulation |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
the Financial Conduct Authority announced this matter on July 21, 2015. The respondents named are Lee Bruce Stewart (1 individual, 0 entities).
This library tags the matter as benchmark submission rigging 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 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 2 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.
- Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2015-07-21 FCA final notice
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFTC v. Bank of America (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-09-19 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $30m | judgment |
| CFTC v. ICAP Capital Markets LLC (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-09-18 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $50m | judgment |
| CFTC v. BNP Paribas (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-08-29 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $90m | judgment |
| CFTC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-06-18 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $65m | judgment |
| CFTC v. Société Générale S.A. (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-06-04 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $475m | judgment |
| CFTC v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (benchmark submission rigging, 2018) | CFTC | 2018-02-01 | Benchmark Submission Rigging , Price Manipulation | $70m | judgment |