简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
FCA Fines Bastion Capital for Cum-Ex Trading
Abstract:Bastion Capital has incurred substantial penalties due to significant deficiencies in its financial controls, marking the fifth case by the FCA related to cum-ex trading.

Bastion Capital London Limited has been levied a substantial fine of £2,452,700 by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for significant lapses in financial controls linked to cum-ex trading. The FCA found that Bastion Capital inadequately managed the risk of being exploited for fraudulent trading and money laundering purposes.

During the period spanning January 2014 to September 2015, Bastion Capital carried out trades totaling around £49 billion in Danish equities and £22.5 billion in Belgian equities on behalf of clients from Solo Group. The manner in which these transactions were conducted raised significant suspicions of involvement in financial wrongdoing.
It appears that these trades were orchestrated with the intention of facilitating withholding tax reclaims in Denmark and Belgium. As a result, Bastion Capital received a commission amounting to £1.55 million, which constituted a substantial portion of the company's revenue during that specific timeframe.
Furthermore, Bastion Capital was involved in a sequence of trades executed on behalf of 11 Solo Clients within a span of four days. Remarkably, these clients took opposite positions within hours at significantly disparate prices. As a consequence, Ganymede Cayman Ltd, one of the Solo Clients, incurred a substantial loss of €22.7 million, while the remaining ten Solo Clients gained a corresponding advantage.
Bastion Capital exhibited a failure to recognize or intentionally disregarded numerous warning signs associated with these trades. These transactions lacked any legitimate economic purpose and were solely intended to transfer funds from the controller of the Solo Group to their business associates.
Steve Smart, the Joint Executive Director of Enforcement and Market Oversight at the FCA, remarked, “Bastion generated substantial fees by executing trades on behalf of Solo Group, which ultimately aimed to make unlawful tax reclaims from the Danish and Belgian authorities.”
“They failed to recognize evident warning signs that should have alerted them to the potential involvement in financial crimes. It is crucial for firms to effectively manage and mitigate these risks.”
Bastion did not contest the FCA's conclusions and opted for a settlement, which made them eligible for a 30% reduction under the FCA's Settlement Discount Scheme. As Bastion is currently in liquidation, the FCA will become a creditor of the company. However, existing creditors will be given priority over the FCA's financial penalty.
FCA Fights Cum-Ex Trading
This represents the FCA's fifth case involving cum-ex trading, which is part of a broader series of actions taken by the FCA in relation to cum-ex dividend arbitrage cases. To date, the FCA has levied fines exceeding £20 million on firms that have generated fees totaling more than £7 million from such trading activities. Recently, the FCA imposed a significant fine on ED&F Man, and last year, it imposed fines on TJM Partnership Limited.
Cum-ex trading, a contentious form of stock trading, was predominantly practiced in Germany and other parts of Europe before being declared illegal due to its exploitative nature. The term “cum-ex” originates from the Latin words “cum” (with) and “ex” (without), signifying the presence or absence of dividend rights associated with shares.
In this type of trading, both the initial bank and the stock borrower would simultaneously claim tax refunds for capital gains tax on the same stock, effectively enabling them to obtain twice the amount of taxes originally paid. This exploitation of a loophole in the system allowed for the diversion of funds from the state treasury.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.
Read more

WikiEXPO Dubai 2025 Concludes Successfully — Convening Global Financial Leaders to Shape a Transpare
On November 11, WikiEXPO Dubai 2025, hosted by WikiGlobal and co-organized by WikiFX, successfully concluded. As one of the world’s most influential Fintech expos, this event brought together more than 570 regulatory representatives, industry leaders, and innovation pioneers from across the globe. Through in-depth discussions on core issues such as regulatory compliance, the forex market, investment strategies, and sustainable finance, the event delivered a profound experience that masterfully blended intellectual depth with actionable insights.

The 5%ers Review: Is it a Scam or Legit? Find Out from These Trader Comments
Did you face reduced leverage and hiked fees without any explanation from The 5%ers broker? Do you find The 5%er rules strange for getting a funded account from this prop trading firm? Has the broker closed your trade inappropriately, preventing you from making gains in the forex market? All these allegations have dominated The 5%ers review segment online. Looking at this, the WikiFX team investigated and found some startling comments against the broker. In this article, we have shared those complaints. Read on!

BROKSTOCK Exposed: Traders Report Login Errors, Withdrawal Issues & Incompetent Customer Support
Is your BROKSTOCK trading account full of inefficiencies? Do the recurrent BROKSTOCK login errors prevent you from opening and shorting positions at a favorable price? Has the broker failed to honor your withdrawal requests? Do you face order execution price issues? Has the customer support service failed to resolve your queries? You are not alone! In this BROKSTOCK review article, we have shared some complaints that need a close introspection. Read on to explore them.

OmegaPro Review: Traders Flood Comment Sections with Withdrawal Denials & Scam Complaints
Has your deposit and withdrawal scenario worsened after the initial good experience at OmegaPro, a UK-based forex broker? Does the broker ask you to invest when withdrawing your funds? Did the broker officials trap you with their false promises of compound interest on your deposit? Have you found it impossible to transfer funds from your OmegaPro login to another broker’s account? Do you witness a lack of support when dealing with these unfortunate trading circumstances? These are no longer isolated complaints — they have allegedly become the reason for OmegaPro’s tarnished trust and reputation within the trading community. Read on as we share the OmegaPro review in this article.
