RULE ENFORCEMENT REVIEW 

OF THE 

CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE 

I. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

The Division of Trading and Markets (“Division”) has completed a rule enforcement 

review of the audit trail, trade practice surveillance, and disciplinary programs of the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange (“CME” or “Exchange”) for compliance with applicable provisions of 

Section 5(d) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), as amended by the Commodity Futures 

Modernization Act of 2000 (“CFMA”). The review covers the period January 1 to July 1, 2001 

(“target period”).1

The CFMA, which became effective on December 21, 2000, replaced prescriptive rules 

with broad, flexible core principles that are applicable to “designated contract markets.”2

 On 

August 10, 2001, the Commission published final rules implementing the CFMA with respect to 

trading facilities, including designated contract markets.3 The final rules became effective 

October 9, 2001. Appendix B to Part 38 of the rules, which addresses designated contract 

markets, provides guidance and acceptable practices concerning the core principles with which a 

designated contract market must comply to maintain its designation. Although the guidance 

 

1

 Rule enforcement reviews prepared by the Division are intended to present an analysis of an exchange’s overall

compliance capabilities for the period under review. Such reviews deal only with programs directly addressed in the 

review and do not assess all programs. The Division’s analyses, conclusions, and recommendations are based, in

large part, upon the Division’s evaluation of a sample of investigation and disciplinary case files, and other 

exchange documents. This evaluation process, in some instances, identifies specific deficiencies in particular 

exchange investigations or methods but is not designed to uncover all instances in which an exchange does not

address effectively all exchange rule violations or other deficiencies. Neither is such a review intended to go beyond

the quality of the exchange’s self-regulatory systems to include direct surveillance of the market, although some

direct testing is performed as a measure of quality control. 

2

 Section 5(c) of the Act provides that a board of trade such as the CME that was designated as a contract market on 

the date of the enactment of the CFMA is deemed to be a “designated contract market” under the Act. 

3 See 66 F.R. 42255. 
establishes non-exclusive safe harbors, it does not establish a mandatory means of compliance 

with the core principles.

The Division’s review focuses on three core principles that relate to the Exchange’s audit 

trail, trade practice surveillance, and disciplinary programs. Core Principle (2) - Compliance 

with Rules, and Core Principle (12) - Protection of Market Participants, relate to surveillance, 

enforcement, and disciplinary procedures used by a contract market to protect market 

participants from abusive trading practices. Core Principle (10) – Trade Information, relates to 

the maintenance of an audit trail that can be used to assist a contract market in the identification 

and prosecution of customer and market abuses. Appendix B to Part 38 provides acceptable 

practices for demonstrating compliance with Core Principles 2 and 10. Acceptable practices are 

not set forth for Core Principle 12, and therefore, no safe harbor has been established to date for 

that core principle.4

To assess compliance with these core principles, Division staff reviewed numerous 

documents used by the Exchange’s Division of Market Regulation (“Market Regulation”) in 

carrying out its routine oversight responsibilities. The Division also interviewed senior 

compliance officials and staff from Market Regulation with respect to the operation of the 

Exchange’s compliance and surveillance programs.

5

 The documents reviewed included, among 

others, the following: 

• computer reports generated by CME’s automated surveillance systems; 

• trade practice investigation and disciplinary case logs; 

• trade practice investigation and disciplinary action files; 

• back office audit files containing trading card and order ticket recordkeeping 

reviews; 

 

4

 In promulgating Part 38, the Commission reserved the authority to adopt acceptable practices for compliance with 

Core Principle 12 at a later date. 

5

 A copy of the transcript of those interviews can be found in Appendix 1.

2
• electronic reviews of all trades that focus on members’ compliance with trade 

recordation requirements; 

• compliance manuals and guidelines; and 

• minutes of Board of Directors and disciplinary committee meetings held during 

the target period. 

 

The Division provided the Exchange an opportunity to review and comment on a draft of 

this report on June 3, 2002. On June 11, 2002, Division staff conducted an exit conference with 

CME officials to discuss the report’s findings and recommendations. 

3
II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. Audit Trail Program 

Findings 

• The Exchange maintains an adequate audit trail program that provides for the 

recording and safe storage of trade information in a manner that allows staff to 

use the information to assist in the prevention of customer and market abuses and 

to provide evidence of rule violations. 

• The Exchange’s automated trade timing system, using various timing data and 

other trade information, imputes the time of execution for each trade side. 

• The Exchange’s audit trail enforcement program includes daily computerized 

reviews of floor members’ compliance with trade recordation requirements, called 

the “CTR Monthly Enforcement Program,” and annual back office audits of 

clearing firms’ data entry accuracy and recordkeeping compliance. Noncompliant firms and floor members who exceed allowable threshold levels are 

subject to summary fines. 

• Back office audits were thorough, well documented, and completed in a timely 

manner. With the exception of the timely collection of endorsement cards that 

contain trades executed for other members on the floor, the back office audits 

indicated high levels of compliance with CME recordkeeping requirements. 

• Indications of inaccurate data entry by clearing firms that are discovered in the 

course of floor members’ appeals of summary fines for recordkeeping violations 

are not brought to the attention of the respective clearing firm so that it may take 

corrective action. 

Recommendations 

• The CME should take steps to ensure that endorsement cards used for 

recording trades for other members present on the floor are collected and 

timestamped in a timely manner. 

• The CME should institute a procedure whereby clearing firms are notified in 

writing of the types and extent of data entry errors detected during the 

course of administering the summary fine schedule for the CTR Monthly 

Enforcement Program. Where appropriate, firms should be requested to 

respond in writing with implemented or proposed corrective actions. 

4
B. Trade Practice Surveillance Program 

Findings

• The Exchange maintains an adequate trade practice surveillance program through 

the use of an automated surveillance system, video surveillance, and floor 

surveillance.

• Investigations opened during the target period were initiated from various 

sources, including the Exchange’s automated surveillance system, anonymous 

referrals, customer complaints, and floor surveillance. The majority of 

investigations were generated internally from automated surveillance. 

• Investigations referred for disciplinary action involved analysis of substantial 

amounts of data and also frequently involved detailed analysis of videotape 

evidence. However, the Division was unable to fully evaluate the adequacy of 

several investigations that were not referred for disciplinary action because File 

Closing Forms used to document these investigations did not include sufficient 

information regarding the types of violations considered or the investigative 

analysis performed. 

• Memoranda identifying interview tapes that are stored separate and apart from the 

investigation file, in several instances, were not maintained in the respective file. 

In addition, two investigation files that were closed with a recommendation for 

further monitoring of the subjects did not contain evidence that such monitoring 

occurred. Both of these issues were previously raised in the Division’s 1999 

Review of the CME. 

Recommendations 

• The Exchange should ensure that File Closing Forms contain sufficient 

information for any reviewer to determine that appropriate analyses were 

performed. 

• The Exchange should ensure that memoranda are prepared itemizing the 

interview tapes associated with a particular file, and that follow-up 

monitoring of members is documented.

5
C. Disciplinary Program

Findings 

• The Exchange maintains an adequate disciplinary program. During the six-month 

target period, the Exchange imposed fines totaling $720,750 against 151 

individual members, member firms, and clerks. This amount includes fines for 

various trade practice, recordkeeping, and conduct violations. 

• Trade practice violations resulted in sanctions against 11 members, one clerk, and 

one Globex terminal operator, and included $521,500 in fines, suspensions 

totaling almost 11 years, and one permanent prohibition from applying for 

membership and from seeking employment on the trading floor. In addition, two 

members and one clerk were ordered to pay restitution totaling $33,210. Penalties 

imposed appeared reasonable relative to the conduct being sanctioned, and cases 

promptly moved through the disciplinary process. 

• In two instances, the Probable Cause Committee determined not to accept 

Exchange staff’s recommendation to issue charges for a specific violation or 

reduced the recommended charges from major to minor offenses, without 

explanation in the relevant case file or committee minutes. 

Recommendation 

• The Probable Cause Committee should document its reasoning for not 

issuing a particular charge or reducing charges that are recommended by 

Market Regulation staff. 

6
III. AUDIT TRAIL PROGRAM 

Core Principle (10) – Trade Information: 

The board of trade shall maintain rules and procedures to provide for the recording 

and safe storage of all identifying trade information in a manner that enables the 

contract market to use the information for purposes of assisting in the prevention of 

customer and market abuses and providing evidence of any violations of the rules of 

the contract market. 

Pursuant to the acceptable practices set forth in Appendix B to Part 38, an effective 

contract market audit trail should capture and retain sufficient trade-related information to permit 

contract market staff to detect trading abuses and reconstruct transactions within a reasonable 

period of time. In addition, the contract market must create and maintain an electronic 

transaction history database that contains information with respect to transactions executed on 

the designated contract market. An acceptable audit trail also must be able to track a customer 

order from time of receipt through fill allocation or other disposition. Further, an acceptable 

audit trail should include original source documents, transaction history, electronic analysis 

capability and safe storage capability. 

Original source documents include unalterable, sequentially identified records on which 

trade execution information is originally recorded, whether recorded manually or electronically. 

A transaction history consists of an electronic history of each transaction, including all data that 

are input into the trade entry or matching system for the transaction to match and clear. These 

data should include the categories of participants for whom such trades are executed; timing and 

sequencing data adequate to reconstruct trading; and the identification of each account to which 

fills are allocated. An electronic analysis capability permits sorting and presenting data included 

in the transaction history so as to reconstruct trading and to identify possible trading violations, 

while safe storage capability provides for a method of storing the data included in the transaction 

7
history in a manner that protects the data from unauthorized alteration, accidental erasure or 

other loss. 

A. Order Flow and Recordkeeping Requirements 

Orders are typically transmitted to CME’s trading pits by “flashing,” electronic order 

routing systems or hard copy floor order tickets. Flashed orders are hand signaled from the 

initiating firm’s floor order desk, where the order is written up, or from other members present 

on the floor. 6 Electronically transmitted orders to the floor are sent from remote locations 

outside of the Exchange to firms’ floor order desks or directly to terminals in the pit. These 

orders may be sent through a member firm’s proprietary order routing system or through the 

CME’s order routing system, the Trade Order Processing System (“TOPS”). The orders can then 

be routed to CME Universal Broker Station (“CUBS”) terminals, which are located in the trading

pits. CUBS terminals receive and organize orders and transmit filled trade information back to 

the originating source and to the Exchange’s clearing house. 

Upon execution, floor brokers record fill information for customer orders on floor order 

tickets, whether electronically-generated or handwritten. Trades for a member’s personal 

account are recorded on sequenced trading cards, while trades for other members on the floor 

and flashed orders are recorded on endorsement cards. 7 Pursuant to CME Rule 536, the data 

recorded on order tickets and trading cards at the time of execution must include the executing 

 

6

 Most orders for currencies and financial contracts are flashed into the pit, while the vast majority of orders for 

agricultural commodities are hand carried into the pit. 

7

 An endorsement card is usually a non-sequenced trading card that is used to record the trade data for a floor order 

that has been flashed either from the clearing firm’s order desk or from another floor member, i.e., customer type 

indicator (“CTI”) 3 trade. After the trade has been executed, the floor member or his/her clerk fills out the 

endorsement card and returns it to the firm’s order desk where it is attached to the hard copy of the flashed order. If 

flashed by another floor member, the CTI 3 endorsement card must be submitted with the personal trading card used

by the originating floor member to record the order. The executing member must record the time of execution on 

the CTI 3 endorsement card. These cards are then attached to each other at the initiating floor member’s clearing

member firm and timestamped. These trade data are submitted by the clearing member firm electronically to the 

clearing house for matching and clearing. 

8
member’s name or symbol, the name of the member firm clearing the trade, the date, price, 

quantity, commodity, contract month, time bracket symbol,8

 opposite member and clearing firm

and, for options, the strike price, “put” or “call” indicator, and expiration month. Order tickets 

are timestamped when received on the floor (“entry time”) and at the time the fill is reported to 

the customer (“exit time”). In addition, order tickets must contain an account identifier and an 

order number. 

Trading cards used for personal trades are single-sided and must contain a pre-printed 

sequence number and the floor member’s trading symbol. In addition, all transactions must be 

recorded in the order in which they were executed in non-erasable ink, and no more than six 

trades may be recorded on a single card. A floor member may correct errors by crossing off 

erroneous information but without obliterating the recorded information. Further, the floor 

member may not skip any lines when recording trades and must cross out any unused lines 

before starting a new card. Finally, a new trading card must be used at the start of each 15-

minute time bracket. All floor order tickets, personal trading cards and endorsement cards are 

required to be collected by clearing member firms and timestamped within 15 minutes of every 

half-hour time period in which the trade was executed.9

 

Orders executed on the CME’s electronic trading system, Globex, are either entered by a 

customer through the use of a clearing member or third party order routing system via the CME’s 

Application Program Interface, or by calling the order to the clearing member firm’s office and 

having it entered by a Globex terminal operator. The terminal operator must be either an 

 

8

 Time brackets are designated by symbols that represent each 15-minute time period during the trading day, starting

at 7:00–7:15 a.m., which is designated as time bracket ”A”. Separate time bracket symbols are assigned for the 

opening range, closing range, and post-close session. 

9

 Floor orders are only required to be collected when they have been completely filled, when the floor member 

determines that he or she is unable to fill any remaining quantities, or when the unexecuted remaining quantities are 

cancelled. 

9
Exchange floor member or authorized to enter orders by the clearing member firm. Before 

entering Globex orders, the operator must log on to the terminal and input a unique user 

identification assigned by the Globex Control Center. 

Similar to floor orders, Globex orders must contain the price, quantity, commodity, 

contract month, CTI code, account identification, and for option orders, the strike price, “put” or 

“call,” and expiration month. If a Globex terminal operator receives an order that cannot 

immediately be entered into Globex, the operator must prepare a written order and include the 

account identification, date, time of receipt and other required information. The order then must 

be entered into Globex by the operator when it becomes executable. Globex orders are then 

matched pursuant to its trade matching algorithm, and the trade record is electronically sent to 

the customer’s clearing member firm. Globex also automatically records the time of order entry, 

trade matching, and any changes made to an order. 

B. Execution Time for Pit Trades

The Exchange’s Regulatory Trade Timing (“RTT”) system uses the timing indicia 

recorded on order tickets and trading cards, along with time and sales information, to impute a 

time of execution for each trade side. These data include entry and exit timestamps from 

customer order tickets, execution times recorded on CTI 3 endorsement cards for trades executed 

for other members on the floor, the beginning and ending times of 15-minute brackets, trading 

card sequence numbers, the sequence of trades on trading cards, and other required handwritten 

execution times, such as for crosstrades. From these data, a series of timing windows are formed 

using each “start” and “end” time.10 The timing windows are then compared to the time and 

 

10 Some examples of timing window start times would be the entry timestamp from a floor order or the beginning of

the time bracket. End times would include the CTI 3 broker execution time, exit timestamp, or end of the time

bracket.

10
sales and the time of the price quote that is found within the most timing windows is considered 

to be when the trade is most likely to have occurred. 

RTT execution times and trade data collected from floor trading documents are used by 

Market Regulation to reconstruct trading activity. Trade timing data also are incorporated into 

reports stored in the Exchange’s Virtual Detection System (“VDS”) and Regulatory Trade 

Browser (“RTB”). VDS houses various reports that list information and isolate transactions for 

further follow up, and RTB allows staff to generate customized reports for surveillance and 

investigatory purposes.11 The effectiveness of the Exchange’s surveillance applications and RTT 

are dependent upon the proper recordation of trade data by floor members, and the subsequent 

accurate entry of such data by clearing members, because missing or incorrect timing data may 

lead to incorrect trade times. The Exchange routinely conducts audit trail reviews to ensure the 

accuracy of trade data. 

C. Audit Trail Reviews

Audit trail reviews consist of two separate programs. First, the Exchange conducts back 

office audits of member firms.

12 Back office audits focus on clearing member firms’ entry of 

trading data into the clearing house system for use in imputing RTT times. Market Regulation 

analysts examine a sample of floor orders, personal trading cards and endorsement cards for 

accounts cleared by the member firm being audited, and compare the information on the 

documents to the firm’s cleared trades report. Second, CME conducts a daily electronic review 

of all trades, which focuses on floor members’ compliance with certain trade recordation 

requirements. This program is referred to as the “CTR (Computerized Trade Reconstruction) 

 

11 See Section IV.C. at pp. 26-29 for a discussion of VDS and RTB and how they are used by Market Regulation to

conduct investigations. 

12 Back office audits are conducted a minimum of once a year at each member firm. Additional audits may be 

conducted if Market Regulation identifies or suspects audit trail irregularities. 

11
Monthly Enforcement Program.” Each program includes a separate summary fine schedule that 

is administered by Market Regulation. 

1. Back Office Audits 

Market Regulation employs three data analysts, a senior analyst and a Manager to 

conduct back office audits. Before initiating a back office audit, an analyst issues a letter to the 

member firm informing it of the upcoming audit and that all trading documents for the target 

date, i.e., the trade date prior to the date of the letter, must be made available for review. The 

analyst also provides the firm with a questionnaire that requests background information with 

respect to the firm’s procedures for monitoring, among other things, keypunch errors, 

timestamping errors, floor document pick-up times, CTI coding, and flashed order requirements. 

The analyst also reviews the prior back office audit of the firm to note any deficiencies found, 

and reviews any disciplinary actions issued to the firm for possible audit trail violations. In 

addition, the analyst requests the following CME reports in preparation for the audit: CTR 

Process Type “E” Timestamp Report,13 Timestamp In/Timestamp “T” Report,14 Card Sequence 

“C” Report,15 Execution Timestamp Report,16 and CTR Error Report.17 These reports alert the 

analyst to possible problems the firm may have with timestamping requirements, manuallyrecorded execution times, and trade sequencing on personal trading cards. 

During an on-site visit, the analyst randomly selects a minimum of 50 personal trading 

cards, 50 floor order tickets, and 50 CTI 3 endorsement cards for review.18 If a member firm

 

13 The CTR Process Type “E” Timestamp Report lists all trades that should contain a handwritten execution time. 

14 The Timestamp In/Timestamp “T” Report lists all trades which should contain timestamps. 

15 The Card Sequence “C” Report lists all trades executed by floor members for their own accounts. 

16 The Execution Timestamp Report lists all trades with manual times of execution (CTI 3 trades). 

17 The CTR Error Report lists all trades for which required trade data were missing when submitted.

18 Large member firms may warrant a larger sample size. This is determined by the Market Regulation Manager. 

The selection of the CTI 3 endorsement cards is to focus on the recording of the handwritten execution times. 

12
lacks the minimum number of documents in any category, all of the trading documents in that 

category are reviewed during the audit. In addition, if the firm’s questionnaire indicates that it 

has written Globex orders, the analyst includes a sample of those orders in the audit. The 

documents are examined for compliance with Exchange requirements such as collection and 

entry and exit timestamps, account identification, the use of non-erasable ink, and the crossing 

out of unused lines on personal trading cards. The analyst uses a checklist to ensure that all 

pertinent information is reviewed. 

Upon completion of an audit, the analyst notifies the member firm by letter of any 

violations found and the amount of any summary fines associated with those violations. A 

summary fine is issued to the firm if the audit reveals violations exceeding allowable threshold 

levels. 19 The Exchange uses the following levels of noncompliance when applying summary 

fines: (1) failure to collect documents in accordance with CME’s schedule- 15 percent for 

sequenced trading cards and CTI 3 endorsement cards and 10 percent for floor orders; (2) failure 

to accurately submit and record order type indicator-10 percent; and (3) failure to accurately 

submit flashed order indicator-10 percent. A first offense results in a $1,000 fine, a second 

offense results in a $2,500 fine, and a third offense results in a $5,000 fine. Any subsequent 

offense within 24 months results in a $10,000 fine. 

During the target period, Market Regulation conducted 39 back office audits. A total of 

2,140 floor orders, 1,348 personal trading cards, and 882 CTI 3 endorsement cards were 

examined. The trading documents were prepared by a total of 1,413 floor members. With the 

exception of the timely collection of CTI 3 endorsement cards, the audits indicated high rates of 

compliance with CME audit trail recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, all of the floor 

 

19 Floor members whose trading documents were reviewed during the audit also receive a reminder letter if a 

deficiency was found in the recording of trade information. Floor members are also subject to summary fines under 

the CTR Monthly Enforcement Program, discussed below. 

13
orders examined contained account identification; 2,103 (98 percent) included both entry and 

exit timestamps; 2,049 (95 percent) of the entry and exit timestamps were accurately entered into 

the clearing house system; and 1,965 (92 percent) were collected and timestamped in accordance 

with the Exchange’s collection schedule. In addition, 2,007 (94 percent) of the floor orders were 

flashed orders and were correctly identified as such; 2,030 (95 percent) of the floor orders 

indicated accurate order type indicators; and 2,021 (94 percent) of the floor orders were 

timestamped using trading floor clocks that were in synchronization with the Exchange’s master 

clock.20 

With respect to personal trading cards and CTI 3 endorsement cards, the audits indicated 

that 1,236 (92 percent) of the personal trading cards were collected and timestamped within 

required time periods. In addition, 857 (97 percent) of the CTI 3 endorsement cards indicated 

that the broker recorded an execution time, and all of those times were accurately entered into 

the clearing house system. Further, 1,292 (96 percent) of the personal trading cards, and 839 (95 

percent) of the CTI 3 endorsement cards contained collection timestamps that were synchronized 

with the Exchange’s master clock. However, only 684 (78 percent) of the CTI 3 endorsement 

cards were collected and timestamped in accordance with the CME’s collection schedule. The 

Exchange needs to improve compliance in this area. 

The Division’s review of the Exchange’s back office audits indicates that the audits were 

thorough, well documented and completed in a timely manner. The audit files contained copies 

of original floor orders, personal trading cards and CTI 3 endorsement cards examined during the 

audit, worksheets and spreadsheets prepared by the analyst and, if a fine was levied, a copy of 

the member firm’s payment. Each file also included an initiating form that indicated the date the 

 

20 Market Regulation also tests the accuracy of all timestamp machines on the trading floor on a monthly basis. The 

firm’s timestamp is compared to the main clock located on the floor of the CME. During the course of a back office 

audit, Market Regulation looks for obvious timestamp irregularities. 

14
audit was assigned, the review date, target date and closing date, correspondence with the 

member firm, a copy of the prior back office audit, and any prior relevant disciplinary actions. 

The 39 back office audits, from initiating letter until acknowledgement of deficiencies by the 

member firm, took an average of 28 days to complete. As a result of the audits, 15 firms were 

fined a total of $18,000 pursuant to the Exchange’s summary fine schedule, and 11 floor 

members received deficiency letters. Of the $18,000, six firms were fined $1,000 each for 

untimely collection of CTI 3 endorsement cards. 

2. CTR Monthly Enforcement Program 

Effective January 2001, the Exchange instituted a summary fine schedule for 

recordkeeping violations identified by the CTR Monthly Enforcement Program. This program, 

which supplements the back office reviews, consists of a computerized review of each trade on a 

daily basis for possible floor member recordkeeping exceptions. At the end of each month, the 

exceptions are totaled and members exceeding threshold levels are issued warning letters or 

summary fines. Both the warning letters and summary fines are issued by Market Regulation. 

Market Regulation may rescind warning letters and fines if a floor member is able to produce 

evidence to indicate that he or she recorded the trade data accurately, but that the data were 

incorrectly entered by the clearing firm. 

The program reviews trades for: (1) bracket exceptions, where a floor member does not 

indicate a time bracket or reports an erroneous time bracket; (2) time of execution exceptions, 

which indicate that a required execution time for a CTI 3 order was not recorded or submitted; 

(3) sequence errors, which indicate that the imputed time for a trade was recorded or input into 

the clearing system out of chronological order with other trades recorded on the trading card; and 

15
(4) quotes not found in the time and sales, where the price of a trade is not found on the time and 

sales. In addition, member firms are subject to summary fines for timestamp exceptions.21 

The threshold levels for floor member noncompliance are set at six percent or above for 

bracket exceptions; eight percent for time of execution exceptions; five or more quotes not found 

in time and sales for futures trades, and 10 or more quotes for option trades; and eight percent for 

sequence errors. The threshold level for timestamp exceptions for member firms is set at seven 

percent. Floor members found exceeding threshold levels are issued a warning for the first 

offense; a $500 fine for the second offense; a $1,000 fine for the third offense; and a $5,000 fine 

for any additional offenses within a 12-month period. Member firms found to have violated the 

timestamp exception threshold receive a warning for the first offense; a $1,500 fine for the 

second offense; a $5,000 fine for the third offense; and a $10,000 fine for any additional offenses 

within a 12-month period. In addition, Market Regulation may refer matters that it deems 

egregious to the Probable Cause Committee for consideration of further disciplinary action. 

Under the CTR Monthly Enforcement Program, Market Regulation issued 679 warning 

letters and 209 fines totaling $140,500 to floor members during the target period. Of these, 287 

warnings (42 percent) and 113 fines (54 percent), totaling $72,500, were rescinded upon a 

showing by members that erroneous clearing firm entries caused the exceptions. In addition, 15 

warning letters and nine fines totaling $29,000 were issued to member firms for timestamp

exceptions, with one warning and two fines totaling $15,000 being rescinded. These were 

rescinded upon a showing of technical problems or other mitigating circumstances which were 

already corrected. 

 

21 A timestamp exception occurs when an entry or exit timestamp is missing, if the entry timestamp was later than

the exit timestamp, if the clearing house receipt time is before the exit timestamp or if the time submitted was not

between 0001 and 2400 hours. 

16
These statistics show that a high percentage of warnings and fines issued to floor 

members through the CTR Monthly Enforcement Program are rescinded, indicating that trade 

data in many instances are not being entered correctly by clearing firms into the clearing house 

system. However, Market Regulation has no policy or procedure for informing clearing firms of 

the data entry errors causing the exceptions. The Division believes that the CME should institute 

a procedure whereby clearing firms are notified in writing of the types and extent of data entry 

errors identified during the course of administering the summary fine schedule. In addition, 

where appropriate, Market Regulation should request that the firm set forth in writing the 

remedial steps it has taken, or plans to take, to address the problem areas. This would further 

enhance the reliability of the data entry process and the Exchange’s audit trail generally. 

D. Safe Storage Capability 

CME trade data and the transaction history are stored and maintained in the Exchange’s 

mainframe system. The mainframe system is protected from unauthorized alteration and 

accidental erasure by the RACF Security System. The RACF Security System is used industrywide for the protection and prevention of unauthorized entry. In addition, data are backed up and 

stored on other CME computers, as well as at a private storage facility off the Exchange’s 

premises. The Exchange is currently developing a mainframe system outside of the Chicago 

area that would contain all trade data and transaction history. This system would allow the 

Exchange to trade its products electronically on Globex in the event that its markets were unable 

to operate from their current environment.22 Although the Exchange is required to retain its 

records for a minimum of five years under Commission regulation 1.31, it historically has 

retained trade information for a longer period of time. 

 

22 This facility is expected to be launched in 2002. 

17
E. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The Division found that the Exchange maintains an adequate audit trail program. The 

Exchange maintains rules and procedures that provide for the recording and safe storage of 

identifying trade information in a manner that enables CME’s Market Regulation staff to use the 

information to assist in the prevention of customer and market abuses and to provide evidence of 

any rule violations. The Exchange’s program for enforcing its audit trail rules allows staff to 

reconstruct the path of a customer order from time of receipt to fill allocation or other 

disposition. The enforcement program consists of annual back office audits of clearing member 

firms that review compliance with recordkeeping requirements and the accuracy of data entry, 

and a daily automated review of floor member compliance with trade recordation requirements. 

Both components of the program include separate summary fine schedules that are administered 

by Market Regulation. 

The Exchange’s back office audits were thorough, well documented and completed in a 

timely manner, taking an average of 28 days to complete. With one exception, the Division’s 

review indicated high rates of compliance with CME audit trail recordkeeping requirements. 

The Division found that only 78 percent of the CTI 3 endorsement cards were collected in 

accordance with the Exchange’s trading card collection schedule during the target period. The 

Division also found that indications of inaccurate data entry by clearing firms that are discovered 

in the course of floor members’ appeals of summary fines for recordkeeping violations are not 

18
brought to the attention of the respective clearing firm so that it may take appropriate corrective 

action. 

Based on the foregoing, the Division recommends that the Exchange: 

• Take steps to ensure that endorsement cards used for recording trades for other 

members present on the floor are collected and timestamped in accordance with 

Exchange rules. 

• Institute a procedure whereby clearing firms are notified in writing of the types

and extent of data entry errors detected during the course of administering the

summary fine schedule for the CTR Monthly Enforcement Program. Where 

appropriate, firms should be requested to respond in writing with implemented 

or proposed corrective actions. 

19
IV. TRADE PRACTICE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 

Core Principle (2) – Compliance with Rules: 

The board of trade shall monitor and enforce compliance with the rules of 

the contract market, including the terms and conditions of any contracts to 

be traded and any limitations on access to the contract market. 

Core Principle (12) – Protection of Market Participants: 

The board of trade shall establish and enforce rules to protect market 

participants from abusive practices committed by any party acting as an 

agent for the participants. 

Pursuant to Appendix B to Part 38 of the Commission’s regulations, a contract market’s 

trade practice surveillance program should have the arrangements, resources, and authority 

necessary to perform effective rule enforcement. The arrangements and resources attendant to 

the program should facilitate the direct supervision of the contract market, including analysis of 

relevant data. The program also should have the authority to discipline, suspend, or terminate 

the activities of members or market participants pursuant to clear and fair standards. 

An acceptable trade practice surveillance program should maintain all data reflecting the 

details of each transaction executed on the contract market. In this regard, the program should 

include routine electronic analysis of these data to detect potential trading violations. 

Additionally, the program should provide for appropriate and thorough investigation of all 

potential trading violations brought to the contract market’s attention. Further, an acceptable 

trade practice surveillance program should provide for prompt and effective disciplinary action 

for any violation that is found to have been committed. 

20
A. Staffing and Division of Duties 

1. Market Regulation Staffing 

Market Regulation, which is part of the Exchange’s Business Administration Division, 

administers the Exchange’s trade practice surveillance and market surveillance programs. 

Market Regulation includes 43 individuals who are responsible for detecting, investigating, and 

prosecuting trade practice violations. Market Regulation’s trade practice surveillance 

management team, which includes the Director of Market Regulation, four Associate Directors, 

and four Managers, reports to the Managing Director of Regulatory Affairs.23 The remaining 

trade practice surveillance staff is divided into compliance systems staff, regulatory program

investigators, data analysts, daily investigators, general investigators, trading floor investigators, 

and administrative support staff. Exchange investigators are further classified as “senior 

investigator,” “experienced investigator,” or “investigator,” depending upon the assigned level of 

responsibilities. 

2. Division of Duties 

Market Regulation’s compliance systems staff provides data processing support for 

CME’s investigative activities. Regulatory program investigators are responsible for monitoring 

compliance with specific Exchange rules regarding dual trading, trading within broker 

associations, top step trading restrictions, and out-trade assignments. Data analysts conduct audit 

 

23 The Managing Director of Regulatory Affairs has served in this position for the past year. Prior to this 

appointment, his Exchange experience, which totals 24 years, included eight years as Senior Vice President 

Regulatory Affairs, two years as Vice President of Market Regulation, three years as Vice President of Market 

Surveillance, and six years as a Market Regulation Director. The Director of Market Regulation has 21 years of 

Exchange compliance experience and the four Associate Directors have combined Exchange compliance experience 

totaling 60 years (one Associate Director with 24 years of experience, one Associate Director with 14 years of 

experience, and two Associate Directors with 11 years of experience). The four trade practice surveillance 

Managers have combined Exchange compliance experience totaling 42 years (one Manager with 18 years of

experience, one Manager with 13 years of experience, one Manager with seven years of experience, and one

Manager with four years of experience). 

21
trail reviews of trading records and clearing submissions to determine whether required 

information is being properly recorded and accurately reported to the Exchange. 

The Exchange’s daily investigators analyze exception reports and conduct analysis of 

cleared trades and other data to detect potential trading violations with respect to both open 

outcry trading and Globex trading. If a daily investigator identifies trading activity that he or she 

believes may violate an Exchange rule, the matter is referred to a general investigator for further 

investigation. Although general investigators are responsible for conducting full-scope 

investigations, including gathering and analyzing trading documents and interviewing relevant 

individuals, daily investigators often remain involved in larger investigations until the 

investigation is concluded. If an investigation is concluded and a determination is made to refer 

the matter to a disciplinary committee, the general investigator is responsible for preparing an 

Investigation Report and presenting evidence at any resulting disciplinary proceeding. 

The Exchange also employs four former members as trading floor investigators. The 

trading floor investigators conduct visual floor surveillance throughout the trading day on the 

Exchange’s two trading floors and communicate frequently with daily and general investigators 

regarding their observations. Although all markets are observed during the trading day, primary 

emphasis has been placed in the “equities quadrant” over the past two years due to high volume, 

volatility, and anonymous complaints.24 Observations made by trading floor investigators often 

result in more targeted analysis of individuals by daily investigators and may result in follow-up 

video surveillance, as described below. Additionally, individuals on the trading floor who want 

to report questionable trading activity, but wish to remain anonymous, frequently convey their 

suspicions to Market Regulation through the trading floor investigators. 

 

24 The equities quadrant includes all S&P products, the NASDAQ-100 Stock Index (“NASDAQ-100”), Russell 2000 

Stock Price Index, and Nikkei futures and options. At least one trading floor investigator observes trading in the

NASDAQ-100 pit throughout the trading session. 

22
The Exchange’s trading floor investigators, along with other Exchange operational staff, 

also serve as the pit committee for the Australian Dollar market. In addition, trading floor 

investigators and Exchange operational staff serve as Vice Chairmen of the NASDAQ-100 pit 

committee.25 Finally, pursuant to CME Rule 415.A., trading floor investigators also have the 

authority to charge individuals for trading infractions listed in CME Rule 514. These infractions 

include, among other things, a bid or offer out of line with the market, price infractions, failure to 

confirm a transaction, and unbusinesslike conduct. 

Four investigations were opened during the target period that substantially relied upon the 

input and expertise of trading floor investigators. The investigations examined the trading 

activity of seven individual members. One member was fined $2,500 for trading ahead in the 

Australian Dollar pit,26 two members in the NASDAQ-100 pit remain under investigation for 

possible noncompetitive trading,27 and investigations involving four members were closed in the 

S&P and Eurodollar pits.28 The latter investigations involved possible disclosure of orders and 

violations of dual trading restrictions. 

 

25 Typically, pit committees are comprised of members who trade in a particular pit. However, because the 

Australian Dollar pit is lightly populated (there are approximately eight members in the pit), which makes it 

difficult to constitute a pit committee, and there have been disputes between members that affected the orderliness of 

the market, the Exchange, in April 2000, gave pit committee responsibility to Exchange trading floor investigators. 

In August 2000, the Exchange added trading floor operations staff to the Australian Dollar pit committee. At about

the same time, the Exchange took the additional step of reconfiguring the NASDAQ-100 pit committee by

appointing the trading floor investigators and six trading floor operations Managers to serve as Vice Chairmen of 

that pit committee. The increased regulatory presence on the committee was taken in response to increased

volatility in the NASDAQ-100 and several complaints alleging improper trading.

26 Case No. 01-18771. As explained in Section IV.D. at p. 30, the Exchange has instituted a new case tracking

system in which each investigation is assigned a case number, along with an accompanying file number for each 

member involved in that case. For purposes of this report, individual file numbers only will be cited in addition to 

case numbers if relevant. 

27 Case No. 01-18883; File Nos. 18883 and 18884.

28 Case Nos. 01-18393 and 01-18552. 

23
B. Video Camera Surveillance 

CME’s video surveillance program, which is unique among domestic exchanges, is an 

important tool for resolving outtrades and is an important component of the Exchange’s trade 

practice surveillance program. Three separate systems comprise the CME’s video camera 

surveillance.29

The “Video Trade Resolution System” (“VTRS”) is a digital video recording system that 

encompasses 34 cameras with various angles throughout CME’s entire equities quadrant, 

including most of the active booth spaces. VTRS data are digitally stored and generally are 

maintained through trade date (“T”) + 1. The Exchange’s second video camera surveillance 

system is the “Video Logging System.” The Video Logging System, which is older than VTRS, 

encompasses 44 analogue cameras throughout the “interest rate quadrant.”30 Video Logging 

System data are stored on videotape and are kept through T+ 3.31 Both of these video systems 

run throughout the trading day and primarily are used by members and member firms for 

resolving outtrades. Market Regulation staff also can utilize VTRS and Video Logging System

data for investigative purposes, provided that a request is made to save the data before the data 

are erased or recorded over. 

The Exchange’s third video surveillance system, “Video Surveillance,” is specifically 

used by Market Regulation in connection with substantive investigations that typically involve a 

pattern of conduct. This system, which encompasses 19 cameras (ten on the upper trading floor 

and nine on the lower trading floor) positioned at various locations around the trading floors, has 

 

29 The Exchange’s video surveillance systems do not possess audio capabilities. 

30 The interest rate quadrant includes Agency Notes, Eurodollars, EuroYen, Japanese Government Bonds, LIBOR,

Quarterly Bankruptcy Index, Swap Futures, Treasury Bills, and Turn Rates. 

31 The technology associated with VTRS accounts for the storage difference between VTRS (T+1) and Video 

Logging (T+3).

24
superior zooming capabilities. For example, a camera can be positioned to look over a person’s 

shoulder at a trading desk to view trading documents. The Video Surveillance system is 

primarily operated by the daily investigators, who also typically perform the initial review and 

analysis of the resulting video. Images are digitally recorded on high-quality videotape. In order 

to use Video Surveillance, staff must first obtain permission from the Managing Director of 

Regulatory Affairs or the Director of Market Regulation. 

The Exchange’s Video Surveillance system played a significant role in several 

investigations opened during the target period. Videotape often can provide clear evidence of 

wrongdoing that may otherwise be difficult to identify and prove. For example, Market 

Regulation initiated two investigations involving misuse of the Exchange’s error account rule 

and noncompetitive trading that resulted in disciplinary action.32 In the first investigation, 

Market Regulation’s review of videotape of the S&P 500 pit suggested that an S&P top step 

order filler and a local traded noncompetitively with another broker through the assistance of the 

broker’s clerk.33 Videotape showed the broker receiving orders and relaying purported fills of

the orders without competitively executing any trade. By various methods, trades were put into 

the broker’s error account. The broker then offset each trade opposite either the top step order 

filler or the local for a profit. Each time the customer was cheated. In one instance, the top step 

order filler was not even in the pit, but the broker recorded a trade with the top step order filler 

on his trading card. The broker’s clerk assisted the broker by withholding orders and matching 

them or writing-up trades that did not occur. 

 

32 The sanctions imposed in both cases are discussed in Section V.C. at pp. 42-43.

33 Case No. 00-17530. CME Rule 541 prohibits floor brokers from dual trading on the top step of the S&P pit. Only 

customer orders can be filled from the top step. A copy of the Investigation Report can be found in Appendix 2. 

25
The Exchange’s Video Surveillance system also played a large role in an investigation 

initially opened based on Market Regulation’s routine analysis of trade data in the S&P 500 pit.34 

As part of the investigation, Market Regulation videotaped a broker’s trading activity for a twoweek period. The videotape showed the broker engaging in noncompetitive, prearranged trading 

with two other brokers (the “accommodating brokers”) during the opening on various trade 

dates. Further, one of the accommodating brokers assigned the opposite side of customer orders 

to his error account without offering the trades to the market. 

C. Automated Computer Surveillance 

1. Virtual Detection System 

The Exchange replaced its automated surveillance system, the Automated Trade System 

(“ATS”), during the last quarter of 1999. The Exchange’s new automated surveillance system, 

the Virtual Detection System, stores reports for pit trades based on cleared trade and quotation 

data. VDS has increased functionality and a more contemporary, user-friendly display than 

ATS. Users perform tasks simply by clicking a mouse button or manipulating objects on a 

screen. VDS also provides users with the ability to view trade data across dates and to select

data in a more customized manner. For example, users can select data within all reports by 

broker, trade date(s), commodity, contract month, individual firm or account number, and by 

dollar value in the Profit and Loss Report. VDS also has an ad hoc selection feature that permits 

users to retrieve data for a particular trade either by an individual broker or order number. 

Additionally, for some reports, VDS has an interface that allows users to adjust parameters. This 

interface is easier to use than the system that was previously used to adjust ATS parameters. 

 

34 Case No. 00-17293. The Division also uncovered questionable trading activity regarding the same individual

while conducting routine oversight and had referred the matter to the Exchange. A copy of the Investigation Report

can be found in Appendix 3.

26
VDS reports, which are generally reviewed weekly by daily investigators, include the 

Market Analysis Report, which isolates unique price movements in time and sales listings to 

locate significant market movements that may be conducive to trading ahead of a customer’s 

order; the Trading Ahead of Customer Orders Report, which compares the trading activity of the 

personal accounts of a filling broker to the customer orders that the broker filled during a market 

rally or a break identified by the Market Analysis Report; the Top Step Violation Report, which 

shows when a member registered as a top step broker in the S&P 500 pit trades for his or her 

personal account; and the Broker Direct Trading Opposite Customer Orders Report and Broker 

Indirect Trading Opposite Customer Orders Report, which identify brokers that trade opposite 

their customer orders directly or using accommodators. 

Other VDS reports are the Direct or Single and Multiple Wash Trades Report; the 

Outtrade Analysis Report; the Indirect Trading with Collaborator Report, which highlights a 

combination of potential trading ahead and trading against violations where the filling broker 

attempts to avoid detection by using another member’s account rather than his or her own 

account to take advantage of an order; the Daily and Month-End Profit and Loss Reports; and the 

Trade Percentages Report, which displays the monthly cumulative trading percentage by broker 

opposite other traders. The defaults and parameters set for each report differ by commodity. 

Although VDS report defaults and parameters can be modified for processing future data, data 

that have already been processed cannot be re-run using the modified default parameters. 

2. Globex Exception Reports 

Globex reports are not available in VDS, but may be stored in VDS in the future. 

Currently, Globex reports are archived to a CD-ROM optical disc system. The Globex exception 

reports include several reports that are very similar to open outcry trading exception reports. 

These include the Globex User Direct Trades Opposite Customer Orders Report and the Globex 

27
Indirect Trades Opposite Customer Orders Report, the Globex Single Account Wash Trades and 

Multiple Account Wash Trades Report, the Globex Indirect Trading Opposite Customer Orders 

With Collaborator Report, and the Globex Trade Percentages Report.35 

In addition, Market Regulation uses reports that are unique to Globex. For example, 

CME requires that when market participants engage in pre-execution discussions, one side must 

be exposed to the market for five seconds in futures and 15 seconds in options before the other 

party to the discussion can take the opposite side of the order.36 The Globex Monitoring for PreExecution Report reviews the trading of a firm against its customers’ orders and displays 

instances in which 5 seconds or less elapsed between placement and execution. The Globex 

Trading Ahead of Customers Report is also unique. The report scans trading activity for trading 

ahead exceptions in the Globex market, the side-by-side open outcry market, and between both 

markets. The side-by-side markets that are compared for purposes of this report are futures and 

E-mini contracts in S&P 500, NASDAQ-100, Eurodollars, and Feeder Cattle. 

3. Regulatory Trade Browser 

Regulatory Trade Browser is an ad hoc desktop tool that allows Market Regulation staff 

to select and sort data. For example, Market Regulation staff may use RTB to further analyze 

potential trading violations identified in VDS and Globex exception reports, or they may use 

RTB to create customized reports in furtherance of investigations. RTB data are drawn from the 

Exchange’s cleared trade data and include every piece of open outcry and Globex cleared trade 

data that the Exchange has regarding a particular trade.37 

 

35 The Globex Trade Percentages Report is similar to its open outcry counterpart except that this report aggregates 

and compares trade percentages by (1) user i.d. versus other user i.d. and (2) user name versus other users by name. 

36 See Special Executive Report 2-2631, March 8, 1993. Revised September 1993, SER S-2707; December 2000 

SER S-3624. 

37 RTB contains all trade data from 2000, 2001, and year-to-date 2002. Older data are available through a request to 

the Exchange’s Management Information Systems Division.

28
While VDS outputs are generally in the form of exception reports, RTB permits users to 

query any field of trade data or any combination of fields to create reports that can be displayed 

in multiple formats. Examples of RTB queries include requests by any criteria on the trade 

record, including, but not limited to, trades by account number; filling broker at a specific firm; 

filling broker for a given time period; clearing firm; trading card sequence number; personal 

account; order number; commodity; closing or opening range; bracket period; broker symbol; 

and any specified time period. As noted above, users also can query several fields to create a 

report. For example, a daily or general investigator could query RTB to identify all spread trades 

of a certain size (e.g., greater than ten contracts) executed in a specified commodity during a 

particular bracket. The query could be further tailored to identify spread trades executed 

between certain members. The resulting report could be sorted and downloaded into an Excel 

spreadsheet. RTB reports are often included as evidence in Investigation Reports. 

4. Other Databases 

Other sources of data available to Market Regulation staff for conducting investigations 

are the Exchange’s Interested Party and Accounts Database (“IP/Accounts Database”) and the 

Large Trader Database. These data are available via desktop applications. 

The IP/Accounts Database provides information concerning members, member-employees, 

member and related firms, Exchange committees, registered broker associations, and accounts 

that are owned and/or controlled by members. Data included in the IP/Accounts Database are 

generated from the Exchange Membership Database and include specific member account 

number information. The Large Trader Database, which is primarily used for market 

surveillance purposes, consists of current and archived information regarding open positions of

all traders who carry positions larger than the reporting level. This information includes firm, 

name, address, and other details regarding accounts that have become reportable. 

29
D. Case Tracking System 

Since the 1999 Review, the Exchange has implemented a new case tracking system. The 

new system, a Microsoft Access database, includes information relating to the date a matter is 

opened, subject, complainant, incident dates, case type (topic), commodity, description of 

allegations, investigative phase, date referred for charges, date referred to disciplinary 

committee, hearing dates, applicable rule, verdict/findings, fine, fine waived, fine paid, 

suspension, suspension start and end dates, expulsion, restitution, date closed, effective date, 

warning letters, and findings. 

Under the Exchange’s new case tracking system, sequential case numbers are assigned to 

any Market Regulation investigation. In addition, each case number is assigned a separate file 

number for each individual or firm whose activity is being examined. For example, if Market 

Regulation begins to examine trading activity among three members, a case number is assigned 

to the matter along with three separate file numbers (the first file number assigned is the same as 

the case number). If the case is completed with respect to one individual, but ongoing with 

respect to the remaining two individuals, the file relating to the individual for whom the case is 

completed is appropriately marked and tracked by Market Regulation and the other two files 

remain open. This system allows the Exchange to maintain accurate, up-to-date data regarding 

any individual or firm that is engaged in potentially violative trading activity. 

E. Timeliness of Investigations 

The Division found that the Exchange’s investigations were completed in a timely 

manner.38 During the target period, the Exchange closed 224 trade practice files that were 

opened in conjunction with 187 investigations, including 92 files that were part of 43 

 

38 The Division calculated the Exchange’s timeliness statistics based on the number of files closed during the target

period. 

30
investigations opened prior to the start of the target period. The Division found that of the 224 

files, 137 files (61 percent) were closed within four months; 23 files (10 percent) were closed 

within four to six months; and 46 files (21 percent) were closed within six months to one year. 

Eighteen files (eight percent) were open longer than one year. 

The Division examined each of the 18 files, representing seven investigations that were 

open longer than one year. Although the age of these files ranged from 382 to 468 days, the 

Division found that they were justifiably open for the longer periods of time based on several 

factors. Specifically, the files involved complex fact patterns, required numerous interviews and 

document requests, and frequently required detailed review of videotape evidence. Further, 12 

of the 18 files resulted in referral to a disciplinary committee with recommended charges. 

F. Adequacy of Investigations 

 1. Types and Sources of Investigations 

The 254 files opened during the target period were initiated from various sources, 

including 175 files that were internally generated from the CME’s automated surveillance 

systems and other routine oversight programs. Thirty-two files were generated from anonymous 

referrals; 25 files from identified referrals; 10 files from customer complaints; nine files from

National Futures Association referrals; and one file from a Division referral. The source of two 

files was not identified. The 175 files initiated from internal sources included 131 files generated 

from VDS exception report reviews; 22 files referred from the Globex Control Center; 18 files 

generated from unknown or non-specified sources; two files referred from trading floor 

investigators; and one file each from a block trade review and a committee referral. 

The Division reviewed 114 of the 224 files closed during the target period for adequacy 

and thoroughness. The sample reviewed included potential violations relating to, among other 

things, prearranged trading, violation of the Exchange’s dual trading and top step restrictions, 

31
trading ahead of customer orders, broker association violations, misuse of error accounts, and 

Globex violations. The Division also reviewed several customer complaints. Although 

investigations were conducted across all contract markets, the majority of investigations were 

conducted in the Exchange’s equity index and interest rate contracts, which account for a 

significant portion of the Exchange’s volume. 

2. Investigations Referred to a Disciplinary Committee 

The Division found that cases referred to a disciplinary committee for further action were 

typically complex investigations that involved analysis of substantial amounts of data and 

frequently involved analysis of several trading days of videotape evidence. The investigations 

were thorough and well-documented, and the appropriate types of analysis were conducted. The 

files typically contained pertinent underlying trading documents, summaries of witness 

interviews, correspondence, computer reports, summaries of the trading activity examined, and 

detailed Investigation Reports. 

The Investigation Reports described the details surrounding an investigation, including 

how an investigation was initiated, the facts developed during the course of an investigation, 

staff’s analysis and conclusions, and recommendations with respect to charges. The relevant 

computer reports used for staff’s analysis also were attached to Investigation Reports. As stated 

above, several investigations resulted in disciplinary sanctions involving substantial fines and 

denials of trading floor privileges for extended periods. 

3. Investigations Closed by Market Regulation 

Daily investigators use “File Closing Forms” to close investigations. These short forms 

include a brief description of the investigation conducted. Generally, File Closing Forms are not 

as detailed as Investigation Reports that go to a disciplinary committee because the matters did 

not evolve into full-scale investigations. The use of an abbreviated closing form for 

32
investigations that are not going to be pursued further is an acceptable and reasonable practice. 

However, the Division found some instances where File Closing Forms did not contain sufficient 

information to permit the Division to make an informed decision regarding the adequacy of the 

investigation. 

For example, the Division reviewed a NASDAQ-100 futures investigation that resulted 

from numerous complaints concerning the first 30 minutes of trading on a specific date.39 The 

File Closing Form noted that all orders from brackets within the relevant time period were 

reviewed along with “cleared trade data” and profit and loss data for all traders that were active 

participants in the market. The file included a document that displayed individual brokers’ 

profits for the first 15 minutes of trading for the date in question, which indicated that four 

brokers realized what appeared to Division staff as unusually large profits in that short period of 

time.40 Videotape from the Exchange’s VTRS system also was reviewed. The File Closing 

Form concluded, without further explanation, that “[A]s nothing reviewed in the cleared trade 

data or the videologging images provided evidence to support the allegation, it is recommended 

that the matter be closed.”

41

 The File Closing Form did not specify the types of trading violations that were 

considered during the course of the investigation, the types of investigative analyses that were 

performed or the types of cleared trade data that were reviewed. The Division could not discern 

from the File Closing Form or other documentation available whether the Exchange further 

analyzed the profits to determine if they were typical for the market on that particular day, or if 

they were typical for those particular brokers. Although a direct supervisor may be familiar with 

 

39 Case No. 00-17742. 

40 One broker profited by $360,000; one broker profited by $275,000 from a 25-lot trade; one broker profited by

$173,000 from two 10-lot trades; and one broker profited by $139,000 from 115 trades. 

41 A copy of the File Closing Form for Case No. 00-17742 can be found in Appendix 4.

33
a particular investigation and the analyses conducted, File Closing Forms should contain 

sufficient information for any reviewer to determine that appropriate analyses were performed.42

G. File Maintenance 

As noted above, the 114 investigation files examined by the Division generally included 

pertinent underlying trading documents and either an Investigation Report or File Closing Form. 

The Division, however, identified two issues with respect to file maintenance that also were 

raised by the Division in its 1999 Review. First, in the 1999 Review, the Division recommended 

that the Exchange ensure that investigators prepare a memorandum itemizing interview tapes

associated with a particular investigation prior to their storage in a separate area. Because 

interview tapes are not stored with investigation files, Exchange procedure requires that a 

memorandum itemizing the tapes associated with a particular investigation be maintained in the 

respective investigation file. Although some files examined by the Division complied with this 

procedure, the Division identified several files that did not.43

Second, the Division reviewed two investigations that were administratively closed with 

a recommendation for further monitoring of the members involved.44 In the 1999 Review, the 

Division recommended that such monitoring be documented. There was no evidence in either 

file that the continued monitoring was conducted. In responding to the 1999 recommendation, 

the Exchange stated that when follow-up monitoring was suggested, a referral memorandum

specifying a time period for the monitoring would be directed to the appropriate manager. The 

Exchange further explained that when the follow-up monitoring was completed, a short 

 

42 The Division also found that the File Closing Forms for Case Nos. 01-18366, 00-18229, and 00-17941 stated that

the cleared trade data examined did not provide sufficient evidence of trading violations. None of the respective 

closing forms described the cleared trade data that were examined. Copies of the File Closing Forms for these 

investigations can be found in Appendix 5. 

43 These files included, among others, Case Nos. 99-17225, 00-17941, 00-18001, and 01-18436. 

44 Case Nos. 00-18204 and 01-18429. 

34
memorandum discussing the results would be written to the file. The Division continues to 

believe that it is important for the Exchange to document follow-up monitoring when an 

investigation is administratively closed with such a recommendation. 

H. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The Division found that the Exchange maintains an adequate trade practice surveillance 

program through the use of visual, video, and automated computer surveillance for monitoring 

and enforcing compliance with Exchange rules. As part of its trade practice surveillance 

program, the Exchange enforces rules to protect market participants from abusive practices 

committed by any party acting as an agent for participants. 

Market Regulation staff dedicated to trade practice surveillance are led by an experienced 

management team and successfully develop timely investigations and prosecute disciplinary 

actions. In this regard, the Division found that investigations referred for disciplinary action 

involved analysis of substantial amounts of data and also frequently involved detailed analysis of 

videotape evidence. However, the Division was unable to fully evaluate the adequacy of several 

investigations that were not referred for disciplinary action because File Closing Forms used to 

document these investigations did not include sufficient information regarding the types of

violations considered or the investigative analysis performed. 

The Division also found that investigation files were not always maintained in 

accordance with Exchange procedure. Specifically, Market Regulation’s procedures require that 

a memorandum itemizing the interview tapes associated with a particular investigation be 

maintained in the respective investigation file. The Division identified several files that did not 

comply with this procedure. In addition, the Division found two instances in which 

investigations were administratively closed with a recommendation for further monitoring of the 

35
subjects. However, there was no evidence in the files documenting whether the follow-up 

monitoring occurred. Both of these issues were previously brought to the Exchange’s attention 

in the Division’s 1999 Review of the CME. 

Based on the foregoing, the Division recommends that the Exchange: 

• Ensure that File Closing Forms contain sufficient information for any 

reviewer to determine that appropriate analyses were performed. 

• Ensure that memoranda are prepared itemizing the interview tapes 

associated with a particular file, and that follow-up monitoring of members is

documented. 

36
V. DISCIPLINARY PROGRAM 

As stated earlier, Core Principle 2 requires, among other things, that an exchange have 

the authority to discipline, suspend, or terminate the activities of members or market participants 

pursuant to clear and fair standards. In this regard, an acceptable program should provide for 

prompt and effective disciplinary action for any violation that is found to have been committed. 

A. Disciplinary Committees and Procedures

On November 15, 2000, the Exchange completed its demutualization plan and converted 

from an Illinois not-for-profit corporation to a Delaware for-profit corporation. In order to 

streamline its governance structure and decision-making abilities, the Exchange eliminated 

several committees, including two disciplinary committees, the Floor Practice Committee 

(“FPC”) and the Commodity Representative/Customer Complaint Committee (“CRCCC”). The 

Probable Cause Committee (“PCC”) and the Business Conduct Committee (“BCC”) now serve 

as the Exchange’s two primary disciplinary committees and have essentially subsumed the roles 

of the former FPC and CRCCC. 

The PCC is a grand jury-type of committee that reviews investigations referred by 

Market Regulation.45 Once Market Regulation has forwarded an Investigation Report to the 

PCC, the case will be assigned to one of two rotating panels. Each panel is comprised of a 

Chairman, five members, and two voting non-members.46 

Within 30 days of receiving an Investigation Report, the PCC will determine whether a

reasonable basis exists for the issuance of a Notice of Charges based upon violation of Exchange 

rules. In this connection, if Market Regulation advocates that charges be issued, the 

 

45 If probable cause exists to determine that a rule violation is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a direct hearing 

before the Board of Directors, either Market Regulation or the Chairman of the PCC may file an Investigation 

Report with the Chairman of the Board. Rule 408. 

46 Rule 407. 

37
Investigation Report will recommend that the rule violation be charged either as a “major” or a 

“minor” offense.47 A major offense is punishable by suspension and/or a monetary fine not 

exceeding $1,000,000, plus the monetary benefit resulting from the violation, or by expulsion. A 

minor offense is punishable by suspension not exceeding more than one year and/or by a 

monetary fine not exceeding $50,000, plus the monetary benefit resulting from the violation.48 

Additional options available to the PCC, other than directing that a Notice of Charges be issued, 

include issuing a warning letter or determining that a reasonable basis for a rule violation does 

not exist.49

If the PCC directs that a member be charged, the Notice of Charges must indicate the rule 

that the respondent is alleged to have violated, describe the conduct, and advise the member of 

his or her rights, including the opportunity to submit a written answer to the charge within 10 

days of receipt of the Notice. The Notice of Charges must further advise the respondent of the 

committee before which the case will be heard and the time and place for the hearing. A 

respondent may waive his or her right to a hearing within 10 days of receipt of the Notice of 

Charges. A respondent’s failure to file a written answer is not considered an admission or 

denial.50

 

47 Major offenses include, among other things, an act which is substantially detrimental to the interest or welfare of 

the Exchange; being guilty of fraud, any act of bad faith, or dishonest conduct; making or reporting a false or

fictitious trade; manipulating prices; acting as both buyer and seller in the same transaction; improperly utilizing or

permitting the unauthorized use of Globex; or violation of any rule which cites such violation as a major offense. 

See Rule 432. Minor offenses include, among other things, being guilty of dishonorable or uncommercial conduct, 

circulating rumors that tend to reflect on the integrity of a contract, or violating any rule of which such violation is

not a major offense. See Rule 433. 

48 Rule 430. 

49 Rule 408.B. PCC decisions to issue warning letters are primarily based on the gravity of the offense and whether

it involves a clear violation of Exchange rules. Similarly, Market Regulation also is authorized, upon appropriate 

findings, to issue a warning letter rather than referring a matter to the PCC. Warning letters do not constitute either 

the finding of a rule violation or a penalty. Rule 408.A. 

50 Rule 408.C. and D.

38
The BCC is responsible for enforcing Exchange rules relating to trading and sales 

practices, as well as rules relating to trading floor conduct and trading ethics of members and 

clearing members. Generally, if the PCC directs that a Notice of Charges be issued, the case will 

be referred to one of four rotating BCC panels for a hearing. Each panel must include a 

chairman, five members, and two voting non-members.51 The BCC is authorized, among other 

things, to: (1) order a member to cease and desist from conduct found to be in violation of 

Exchange rules; (2) suspend membership privileges, the privilege of acting in the capacity of a 

Globex terminal operator; or in the case of an employee of a member or a clearing member, 

suspend trading floor access and/or the right to associate with a member or clearing member for 

a period not to exceed five years; (3) impose a fine not to exceed $500,000 per violation, plus the 

amount of any benefit received as a result of conduct found to be in violation of Exchange 

rules;

52 and/or (4) order customer restitution, in such amount as warranted by the evidence.53 

Throughout the entire disciplinary process, Market Regulation will attempt to settle a 

case. Respondents may agree to settle a case without admitting or denying charged rule 

violations. Proposed settlements are presented to the BCC for approval.54 If a settlement is 

approved, the BCC will file a written decision specifying the Exchange rules alleged to have 

been violated, a statement that the respondent has accepted the penalty without admission or 

 

51 Rule 402. 

52 In November 2000, the Exchange increased the monetary penalty that could be imposed by the BCC from

$100,000 per violation to $500,000 per violation. 

53 If the BCC determines that a case involves a potential violation that might result in an expulsion or might warrant

a penalty in excess of its own authority, the matter will refer the case to the Board for further hearings and decision. 

Rule 411. 

54 If a respondent presents Market Regulation with an offer of settlement prior to a matter being heard by the PCC, 

the charging phase of the disciplinary process is passed over and the matter is referred directly to the BCC. 

39
denial, and the penalty to be imposed.55 If the case cannot be settled, a disciplinary hearing is 

scheduled. 

Prior to a disciplinary hearing, the respondent may examine all evidence relevant to the 

charges or that is to be relied upon by Market Regulation in presenting its case. Respondents 

may be represented by legal counsel and are permitted to appear and make oral presentations 

before the BCC. After the hearing is concluded, the BCC determines guilt or innocence. The 

BCC Chairman then provides a written report of findings to Market Regulation, the PCC 

Chairman, and the respondent. The report must include the Notice of Charges; the answer to 

charges, if any; a summary of evidence produced at the hearing; and a statement of findings 

regarding each charge, specific rule violations, and penalties, and their effective dates.

56

A respondent found guilty of an offense, or who is otherwise aggrieved by a decision of 

Market Regulation or of any committee other than the Arbitration Committee, may appeal to the 

Board within ten days of any such decision unless specifically prohibited from doing so or the 

monetary sanction is $10,000 or less.57 Unless a respondent demonstrates good cause, appellate 

hearings are strictly limited to the record of the disciplinary proceeding. The Board may set 

aside, modify, or amend the decision only if it determines that the decision was arbitrary or not 

in accordance with Exchange rules; exceeded the committee’s authority or jurisdiction; was 

made without observance of required procedures; or was unsupported by substantial evidence or 

facts. The Board’s decision is final. 

 

55 Rule 408.E.

56 Rule 409. 

57 Rule 417. 

40
B. Timeliness of Disciplinary Procedures

As stated above, Rule 408.B. requires that the PCC determine whether a reasonable basis 

exists for the issuance of charges based upon a violation of Exchange rules within 30 days of 

receiving a completed Investigation Report. During the target period, the PCC met four times 

and reviewed 15 trade practice files that were referred by Market Regulation for disciplinary 

action. With respect to all 15 files, the PCC made a determination as to whether to charge a 

member on the same day it formally reviewed the matter. Notices of Charges were promptly 

issued with respect to 11 of the files. The PCC determined that charges were not warranted with 

respect to four files comprising two investigations.

58 Thus, the PCC acted well within the 30-day 

time period prescribed in Rule 408.B. 

The Division also reviewed the length of time that elapsed between the date that the PCC 

determined to issue a Notice of Charges and the date of a settlement. For those matters that 

resulted in settlement agreements executed during the target period after the PCC directed that 

charges be issued, the elapsed time between the PCC’s determination and the BCC’s acceptance 

of a settlement offer ranged from two to eight months, with an average time period of 

approximately four months. Therefore, the Exchange moved expeditiously to settle matters and 

impose sanctions.

C. Sanctions Imposed 

To assess the penalties imposed by the Exchange, the Division reviewed Exchange 

disciplinary committee minutes, Regulation 9.11 disciplinary action notices reflecting 

disciplinary actions taken during the target period, and all related Exchange disciplinary files. 

During the six-month target period, the Exchange imposed fines totaling $720,750 against 151 

 

58 Case No. 17328 involved possible noncompetitive trading by three members. In Case No. 00-17672, one of five

members involved in possible trading against customer orders was not charged. The PCC found in both cases that 

there was inconclusive evidence to substantiate the charges against the four members. 

41
individual members, member firms, and clerks. This amount includes fines for various trade 

practice, recordkeeping, and conduct violations. Trade practice violations resulted in sanctions 

against 11 members, one clerk, and one Globex terminal operator. Sanctions imposed included 

$521,500 in fines, suspensions totaling almost 11 years, and one permanent prohibition from

applying for membership at the Exchange and from seeking employment on the Exchange 

trading floor with any firm associated with the Exchange or any of its divisions. In addition, two 

members and one clerk were ordered to pay restitution totaling $33,210 to disadvantaged 

customers. The trade practice violations included, among other things, trading ahead, 

noncompetitive trading, prearranged trading, accommodation trading, trading against customer 

orders, misuse of error accounts, and accepting trades for which a member had not placed orders. 

Market Regulation also issued 41 warning letters. 

The Division reviewed 13 files that were part of eight trade practice cases that resulted in 

disciplinary action during the target period. Disciplinary sanctions appear to be adequate relative 

to the conduct being sanctioned and substantial enough to deter future violations. For example, a 

member was fined $300,000, barred from reapplying for Exchange membership for 10 years, and 

suspended from trading floor access for 10 years for accepting trades for which he had not placed 

orders and allowing a non-member clerk to place those trades in his account.59 In addition, the 

member’s clerk was fined $10,000 and ordered to pay restitution of $24,625.60 In another matter 

that involved noncompetitive trading, a member was fined $100,000, ordered to pay $6,125 in 

restitution, and was permanently barred from applying for future Exchange membership or 

seeking employment on the Exchange trading floor with any firm associated with the Exchange 

 

59 Case No. 00-17512; File No. 18259. A copy of the Investigation Report for this matter can be found in Appendix6.

60 Case No. 00-17512; File No. 17512. A copy of the Investigation Report for this matter can be found in Appendix7.

42
or its divisions.61 Fines totaling $11,500 also were levied against two other members as part of 

this same matter. 

Other examples of significant sanctions issued during the target period include a $25,000 

fine and a five-day suspension for prearranged trading;62 two $15,000 fines, a 15-day suspension 

and a six-day suspension against two members for noncompetitive trading;63 a $15,000 fine, a 

10-day suspension of floor privileges, a two-year suspension of floor broker privileges, and 

restitution in the amount of $2,460 for confirming trades at prices other than those at which they 

were executed;64 and a $15,000 fine and a four-month suspension for prearranged trading and 

violating dual trading restrictions.65

The Division also found that disciplinary matters were generally well documented. 

However, the Division identified two matters in which the PCC determined not to accept Market 

Regulation’s recommendation to issue charges for a particular rule violation or reduced the 

recommended charges from major to minor offenses without explanation in the relevant case file 

or PCC minutes. In this regard, Rule 408.B. requires that all PCC determinations “shall be in 

writing, including reasons thereof, all of which shall become part of the investigation file.” 

 

61 Case No. 00-17530; File No. 17530. See Section IV.B. at p. 25 for a more detailed description of the matter. 

The $300,000 fine imposed in Case No. 00-17512 and the $100,000 fine and $6,125 in customer restitution imposed 

in Case No 00-17530 are uncollected. The two individuals against whom the penalties were imposed both leased 

their memberships and have been barred from the Exchange. In addition, the $10,000 fine and the $24,625 in

restitution levied against the clerk in Case No. 17512 are also uncollected. The clerk has been barred from the 

trading floor until the fine and restitution have been paid. 

62 Case No. 00-17293; File No. 17294. In addition, subsequent to the target period, a second member involved in

this case was fined $40,000, suspended for 20 days, and banned from filling customer orders for one year. See

Section IV.B. at p. 26 for further discussion of this investigation.

63 Case No. 99-17223; File Nos. 17223 and 18015. A copy of the Investigation report for these matters can be found

in Appendix 8. 

64 Case No. 00-17321; File No. 17321. In addition, subsequent to the target period, another member involved in this

case was fined $2,500 and suspended for 13 days. A copy of the Investigation Report for this matter can be found in

Appendix 9. 

65 Case No. 00-17529; File No. 17529. A copy of the Investigation Report for this matter can be found in Appendix10.

43
In the first matter, Market Regulation recommended that a broker be charged with four 

major violations of Rule 539 (Prearranged Trades Prohibited) and two major violations of Rule 

541 (Trading Restrictions Respecting the S&P 500 Stock Price Index Futures Contract).66 The 

PCC charged the broker with one major and three minor violations of Rule 539 and issued no 

charges with respect to violation of Rule 541. There is no documentation in the case file 

regarding the PCC’s determination nor do the PCC’s minutes indicate why the PCC did not fully 

accept Market Regulation’s recommendation. In the second matter, Market Regulation 

recommended that a broker be charged with two major violations of Rule 539 and two major 

violations of Rule 541.67 The PCC charged the broker with two minor violations of Rule 539 

and one major violation of Rule 541. Again, neither the case file nor the PCC’s minutes indicate 

why the PCC did not fully accept Market Regulation’s recommendation. Although, as described 

above, both of these cases resulted in the imposition of sanctions for the remaining charges, the 

Exchange should document the PCC’s rationale in those instances where staff’s 

recommendations are not followed. 

D. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based upon its review the Division found that the Exchange maintains an adequate 

disciplinary program. The PCC promptly determines whether to issue charges, and when 

charges are issued, cases are promptly referred to the BCC. 

During the target period, the Exchange assessed $521,500 in fines; permanently 

prohibited an individual from applying for future Exchange membership and from seeking 

employment on the Exchange trading floor with any firm associated with the Exchange or any of 

its divisions; and imposed suspensions totaling almost 11 years for trade practice violations such 

 

66 Case No. 00-17293. 

67 Case No. 17529. 

44
45

as noncompetitive trading, trading ahead, prearranged trading, accommodation trading, trading 

against customer orders, misuse of error accounts, and accepting trades for which a member had 

not placed orders. In addition, members were ordered to pay $33,210 in customer restitution. 

The penalties imposed appear reasonable relative to the conduct being sanctioned. 

However, the Division identified two instances when the PCC determined not to accept 

Market Regulation’s recommendation to issue charges for a particular rule violation or reduced 

the recommended charges from major to minor offenses, without explanation in the relevant case 

file or PCC minutes. 

Based on the foregoing, the Division recommends that the Exchange: 

• Document the PCC’s reasoning for not issuing a particular charge or reducing 

charges that are recommended by Market Regulation staff.