FCA v. Travis Lloyd Klein (fictitious internal trades, 2024)

Status unknown

✓ 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 (fca-travis-lloyd-klein-mismarking-2024) by email

In November 2024, the FCA published a final notice prohibiting former Macquarie metals trader Travis Lloyd Klein for recording 426 fictitious trades on the bank's internal systems to hide loss-making positions; no fine was imposed because of his financial hardship.

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 Financial Conduct Authority announced this matter on November 18, 2024. The respondents named are Travis Lloyd Klein (1 individual, 0 entities).

The notice finds that from June 2020 to February 2022 Klein recorded and amended 426 fictitious trades in the bank's internal systems, and changed broker quotes, so that his loss-making freight and metals derivatives positions were not visible. The trades never reached any exchange, client or counterparty and did not affect the market. Their removal and the unwinding of his positions cost the bank about US$57.8 million.

This library tags the matter as mismarking, 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 prohibition from performing any regulated function. The FCA would have imposed a £103,700 fine but did not because he showed serious financial hardship.

The notice is a final notice and records misconduct found by the FCA. The conduct is false internal valuation and position recording, so we classify it as mismarking rather than wash trading.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2024-11-18 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.

• FCA final notice

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. 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.