|
Title: A "Clearly erronous trade" does not include illegal access Post by: dennis_sweden on June 21, 2011, 11:30:01 AM According to FINRA (Financial Industry Regualtory Authority) Rule 11891 defines the term “clearly erroneous” for purposes of the FINRA Rule
11890 Series. Quote Finally, SupplementaryMaterial .04 specifically addresses suspicious trading activities, such as unauthorized trading activity or attempts tomanipulate stock prices by illegally gaining access to legitimate accounts or opening new accounts using false information (often referred to as “account intrusion”). Although FINRA continues to be concerned about protectingmarkets fromunauthorized or illegal activity like account intrusion that could disrupt a fair and orderlymarket, FINRA’s clearly erroneous authority does not extend to such suspicious trading activities. Rather, such activities relate to allegations of fraud and fall outside the scope of the clearly erroneous rules. http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p120735.pdf Nasdaq Rule 11890 CLEARLY ERRONOUS TRANSACTIONS Quote (1) Definition. For purposes of this rule, the terms of a transaction executed on Nasdaq are "clearly erroneous" when there is an obvious error in any term, such as price, number of shares or other unit of trading, or identification of the security. A transaction made in clearly erroneous error and cancelled by both parties or determined by Nasdaq to be clearly erroneous will be removed from the consolidated tape. Also, in April 2009 FINRA fined Centaurus Financial Inc. $ 175.000 because "Centarus the neglected to make sure that the computer firewall, password system, and username for its computer fax server were providing the necessary protections. As a result, FINRA contends that persons that lacked the proper authorization were able to gain access to images stored on the faxes that included account numbers, social security data, personal information, and other sensitive, confidential client information." I am not advocating firing law suits against Mtgox, and certainly not reporting Mtgox to any competent authority, however, the information that Mtgox has provided is not, as it purported to be, in accordance with the rule of law. Furthermore I have not lost anything in the crash/rollback, I only made a purchase of 56 bitcoins at $ 13. Title: Re: A "Clearly erronous trade" does not include illegal access Post by: DamienBlack on June 21, 2011, 11:36:30 AM Too bad mt gox isn't NASDAQ. Or your argument might hold some weight.
|