In the Matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

) 

) 

) 

Bm·clays Bank PLC, ) CFTC Docket No. 15-24 

) 

Respondent. ) 

) 

_________________________ ) 

ORDER INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTIONS 6(c)(4)(A) AND 6(d) OF THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT, 

MAIQNG FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS 

I. 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("Commission" or "CFTC") has reason to 

believe that Bm·clays Bank PLC ("Respondent" or "Barclays") has violated the Commodity 

Exchange Act (the "Act") and Commission Regulations ("Regulations"). Therefore, the 

Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative 

proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted to determine whether Respondent engaged in the 

violations set forth herein, and to determine whether any order shall be issued imposing remedial 

sanctions. 

II. 

In anticipation of the institution of an administrative proceeding, Respondent has 

submitted an Offer of Settlement ("Offer"), which the Commission has determined to accept. 

Without admitting or denying the findings or conclusions herein, except to the extent Bm·clays 

admits those findings in any related action against Barclays by, or any agreement with, the 

Department of Justice or any other governmental agency or office, Barclays consents to the entry 

and acknowledges service of this Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 6(c)(4)(A) 

and 6( d) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions 

("Order"). 1 

1 Respondent consents to the entry of this Order and to the use of these findings in this proceeding and in any other 

proceeding brought by the Commission or to which the Commission is a party; provided, however, that Respondent 

does not consent to the use of the Offer, or the findings or conclusions in this Order, as the sole basis for any other 

proceeding brought by the Commission, other than in a proceeding in bankruptcy or to enforce the terms of this 

Order. Nor does Respondent consent to the use of the Offer or this Order, or the findings or conclusions in this 

Order consented to in the Offer, by any other party in any other proceeding. Neither the Offer nor the Order confers 

any rights to any party other than the Commission and Barclays. 
III. 

The Commission finds the following: 

A. Summary 

From 2009 through 2012 ("Relevant Period"), Barclays, by and through certain of its 

foreign exchange ("FX") traders, at times, sought to benefit its own trading positions or those of 

FX traders at other banks by attempting to manipulate and aiding and abetting certain traders at 

other banks in their attempts to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates. 

One of the primary FX benchmark rates that the FX traders attempted to manipulate was 

the World Markets/Reuters Closing Spot Rates ("WM/R Rates"). The WM/R Rates are the most 

widely referenced FX benchmark rates in the United States and globally. The WM/R Rates are 

used to establish the relative values of different currencies, and reflect the rates at which one 

currency is exchanged for another currency. Most of the WM/R Rates at issue here are set or 

fixed based on trading activity of market participants, including Bm·clays and other banks, at 

various times throughout the day. The most widely used WM/R Rate is set or fixed at 4 p.m. 

London time ("WM/R 4 p.m. London fix" or the "4 p.m. fix."). Another FX benchmark rate that 

a Barclays FX trader attempted to manipulate is the Russian Ruble/U.S. Dollar ("RUB/USD'j 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME")/EMTA, Inc. 2 benchmark rate ("CME/EMTA Rate") 

that is based on indicative bids and offers submitted by banks to the CME, who calculates and 

issues the CME/EMT A Rate as well as publishes the submitted bids and offers of each 

participant. 

FX benchmark rates, including the WM/R Rates and the CME/EMTA Rate, are used to 

price a variety of transactions including foreign exchange swaps, cross currency swaps, spot 

transactions, forwards, options, futures, and other financial derivative instruments. For example, 

the CME/EMTA Rate is the primary rate source for settling Russian Ruble non-deliverable 

forward transactions and the price used for calculation of the CME Russian Ruble futures final 

settlement price at termination. 4 

At times during the Relevant Period, ce1iain FX traders at Barclays and other banks 

coordinated their trading or indicative rate submissions to attempt to manipulate certain FX 

benchmark rates, including the WM/R 4 p.m. London fix and the CME/EMTA Rate, to their 

benefit. These FX traders at Barclays and the other banks used private electronic chat rooms to 

communicate and plan their attempts to manipulate the FX benchmark rates for certain currency 

pairs. 5 Ce1iain FX traders at Bm·clays regularly participated in numerous private chat rooms. At 

times, in certain chat rooms, FX traders at Bm·clays and other banks disclosed confidential 

customer order information and trading positions, altered trading positions or CME/EMTA 

2 Formerly, the "Emerging Markets Traders Association." 3 Also known as the CME/EMT A Russian Ruble per USD Reference Rate. 

4 CME Submission 05-50R (April 29, 2005), available at 

http://www. cftc. gov /files/ subm iss ions/ru I es/ se I fcertifi cations/200 5 /rul 04 2 7 0 5 cmeOO 1. pdf 

5 Some FX traders involved in certain chat rooms at issue herein were responsible for managing their respective 

banks' FX desks. 

2 
submissions to accommodate the interests of the collective group, and agreed on trading 

strategies as part of an effort by the group to attempt to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates, 

in some cases downward and in some cases upward. 

Barclays traders' attempts to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates involved multiple 

currencies, including some of the most actively traded currencies like the U.S. Dollar, Euro, and 

British Pound Sterling. The wrongful conduct involved desks and offices located in at least New 

York, London and Moscow. 

This conduct occurred at various times over the course of the Relevant Period without 

detection by Barclays in part because of internal controls and supervisory failures at Barclays. 

Barclays failed to adequately assess the risks associated with its participation in the fixing of 

certain FX benchmark rates, including the WM/R 4 p.m. London fix and CME/EMTA rates. 

Barclays also lacked adequate internal controls or procedures to detect and deter possible 

misconduct involving certain FX benchmark rates and failed to adequately supervise its FX 

traders by, among other shortcomings, failing to have adequate controls and monitoring over the 

use of electronic chat rooms. 

In fact, some of this conduct occurred during the same period that Barclays was on notice 

that the CFTC and other regulators were investigating attempts by ce1iain banks to manipulate 

the London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") and other interest rate benchmarks.6 

*** 

In accepting Barclays' Offer, the Commission recognizes Respondent's significant 

cooperation during the CFTC' s Division of Enforcement's ("Division") investigation of this 

matter, which included self-rep01iing preliminary findings of questionable conduct by Barclays 

employees to the CFTC and by providing imp01iant information and analysis to the Division that 

helped the Division efficiently and effectively undertake its investigation. In addition, the 

Commission acknowledges that Bm·clays initiated its own internal investigation into FX trading 

prior to the Division's investigation. The Commission also recognizes that Bm·clays has 

commenced significant remedial action to strengthen the internal controls and policies relating to 

foreign exchange benchmarks and internal and external communications by traders. 

The Commission notes, however, the civil monetary penalty imposed reflects, in part, 

that Bm·clays did not settle this matter at an earlier stage of the investigation. 

B. Respondent 

Barclays Bank PLC is a global banking and financial services company based in the 

U.K. that is engaged in retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth 

6 The CFTC issued an order filing and settling charges that Bm·clays engaged in certain acts of attempted 

manipulation and false reporting of the LIBOR for certain currencies and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate 

("Euribor"). In the Matter of Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and Barclays Capital Inc., CFTC Docket No. 12-

25 (June 27, 2012) (the relevant period of this action was from at least 2005 to at least 2009). 

3 
management and investment management services. It is wholly owned by Barclays PLC, and 

has offices in New York, New York. It became provisionally registered with the Commission as 

a swap dealer on December 31, 2012. 

C. Facts 

1. The FX Market 

The FX market, in which traders are able to buy, sell, exchange and speculate on 

currencies, is one of the world's largest and most actively traded financial markets. According to 

the Bank oflnternational Settlements, trading in global foreign exchange markets averaged $5.3 

trillion per day in April 2013. Currencies are traded in pairs and the transacted rate represents 

the rate to exchange one currency for another currency. The U.S. Dollar is the dominant 

currency in the foreign exchange market. The exchange of the U.S. Dollar for another currency 

accounts for an estimated 87% of global foreign exchange market activity. The most actively 

traded currency pairs are the Euro/U.S. Dollar (EURIUSD), U.S. Dollar/Japanese Yen 

(USD/JPY), and British Pound Sterling/U.S. Dollar (GBP/USD). Participants in the FX market 

include banks, investment firms, commercial companies, central banks, hedge funds and retail 

customers. 

The foreign exchange market is comprised of many instruments including spot, forwards, 

swaps, futures and option contracts. 

2. WM/R Rates and CME/EMTA Rate Overview 

The WM/R Rates, some of the leading and most widely referenced foreign exchange 

benchmark rates, are calculated multiple times daily, including at 4 p.m. London time, which is 

commonly referred to as the "WM/R 4 p.m. London fix" or the "4 p.m. fix." 7 For twenty-one of 

the most liquid currencies (the "trade currencies"), the 4 p.m. fix is based on actual trades, using 

bids and offers extracted from a ce1iain electronic trading system during a one-minute window 

("fix period"). WM/Reuters determines the bid and offer rates based on the captured transacted 

rate and the bid-offer spread. WM/Reuters then calculates the median of these bid and offer 

rates and from these medians determines a "mid trade rate." Ifthere are not enough trades, 

WM/Reuters calculates a "mid order rate." All orders and transactions are weighted equally, 

regardless of their notional sizes. 

The WM/R Rates for the other 139 less liquid currencies (the "non-trade currencies") are 

set by similar methodology. Because these currencies are less liquid, WM/Reuters relies on 

indicative quotes (submissions) derived from a Reuters computer feed that solicits "indications 

of interest" from market participants as part of its fixing methodology. WM/Reuters captures 

independent snapshots of indicative quotes for bids and offers, and selects the median rate from 

these quotes as the "WM/R 4 p.m. London fix." 

7 Another important benchmark is the European Central Bank ("ECB") rate set by the ECB at 1:15 p.m. London 

time. Though less widely referenced than the WM/R Rate, the ECB Rates are also used by a wide range of 

participants, specifically non-financial corporates and are important for the non-deliverable forwards market. See 

Financial Stability Board Foreign Exchange Benchmarks Final Report at 1. (September 30, 2014). 

4 
WM/Reuters also provides fix rates for forward and non-deliverable forward contracts 

using methodology similar to that used for non-trade currencies. Fix rates for forward and nondeliverable forward contracts are published using a premium or discount to the spot rate for the 

relevant currency pair. 

Other FX benchmark rates are priced through the use of indicative rates. The Russian 

Ruble/U.S. Dollar CME/EMTA Rate is derived from a daily telephonic survey of participating 

banks8 that the CME conducts at a random time between 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. Moscow 

time. If a bank responds to the daily survey, it provides the bid and offer at which it could 

execute a $100,000 RUB/USD spot transaction for next-day value in the Moscow marketplace. 

Survey participants' responses are then confirmed in writing, recorded telephone message or 

other secure electronic communication.9 If more than ten survey responses are received, the 

CME randomly selects ten responses. The CME then determines the midpoint of each bid-offer 

pair and eliminates the two lowest and the two highest midpoints. 10 The mean of the remaining 

six midpoints results in the CME/EMTA Rate for that day. The responding bank names and 

their indicative responses are published by the CME and EMTA on their respective websites as 

well as the calculated CME/EMT A Rate. The bids and offers submitted by the survey 

participants should reflect their honest assessment of the current prevailing market rate. Taking 

into account the benefit to the survey pmiicipants' trading positions is not a legitimate or 

permissible factor in assessing the currently prevailing market rate. 

Foreign exchange futures contracts are connected to FX benchmark rates. The CME 

Russian Ruble/U.S. Dollar (RUB/USD) futures contract, for instance, is a cash settled futures 

contract for which the final settlement rate, a component of the contract's price, is equal to the 

reciprocal of the CME/EMT A Rate. Exchange rates in many actively traded CME foreign 

exchange futures contracts, including the Euro/U.S. Dollar (EUR/USD) futures, the U.S. 

Dollar/Japanese Yen (USD/JPY) futures, and British Pound Sterling/U.S. Dollar (GBP/USD) 

futures, track rates in spot foreign exchange markets at near parity after adjusting for the forward 

differential, or adding or subtracting "forward points." Speculative traders employ strategies that 

seek to capture short-lived arbitrage opportunities between foreign exchange futures and spot 

contracts. Since 2012, the CME provides clearing and other services for cash-settled Over the 

Counter FX Spot, Forward, Swaps, and Non-Deliverable Forward (NDF) contracts. The 

contracts cover 26 currency pairs, including EUR/USD, USD/JPY, and GBP/USD, and are cashsettled based on the WM/R 4 p.m. London fix. 

3. Barclays Traders' Attempts to Manipulate Trading Based FX Benchmark 

Rates 

In late 2008, as the financial crisis began to wane, liquidity and volume in the FX market 

increased as many financial institutions and other market pmiicipants sought to exchange 

8 All participating banks are inside the Russian federation and are active participants in the RUB/USD and/or 

Russian Ruble non-deliverable forward markets. 9 See CME Rulebook, Chapter 260 (26002 Settlement Procedures). 10 Iffewer than ten responses are received (but more than five) the CME eliminates the high and low midpoint. If 

fewer than five responses are received no rate will be published for that day. 

5 
currencies. The increase in volume and liquidity allowed Barclays FX traders and traders at 

other banks to take advantage of this trading opportunity, specifically during the FX benchmark 

rate fixing periods. 

At the same time, cetiain FX traders at Bm·clays and other banlcs had and/or developed 

relationships with certain FX traders at other banks, and they increasingly used private chat 

rooms to communicate and share information with each other. Certain FX traders at Barclays 

and other banlcs routinely participated in the chat rooms. Often, these FX traders had multiple 

chat rooms open simultaneously on their trading terminals, and within a chat, the traders often 

focused on a particular currency pair. Being a member of certain chat rooms was sometimes 

exclusive and by invitation only. 

For example, when inviting in a new member, traders in one chat room tried to ensure 

that a new member agreed to put the interests of the group first. In one chat, traders from three 

other banlcs discussed11 whether to invite a Bm·clays trader into a chat room: 

Bank Z Trader: 

Bank X Trader: 

Banlc Z Trader: 

Bank X Trader: 

Banlc Y Trader: 

Banlc X Trader: 

Bank Z Trader: 

7:49:55 

7:50:27 

7:50:30 

7:50:32 

7:50:39 

7:50:43 

7:50:54 

7:51:00 

7:51:08 

7:51:13 

7:51:16 

7:51:21 

7:51:26 

7:51:46 

7:51:51 

7:52:01 

7:52:17 

7:52:21 

7:52:33 

7:52:46 

7:53:52 

are we ok with keeping this as is .. 

ie the info lvls & risk sharing? 

well ... 

that is the qu[ estion] 

you know him best obv ... 

if you think we need to adjust it 

then he shouldn't be[] in chat 

yeah that is key 

simple question [Banlc Z Trader] 

I trust you implicitly [Bank Z Trader] 

and your judgement 

you know him 

will he tell rest of desk stuff 

or god forbin his nyk ... 

yes 

that's really imp[ortant] q[uestion] 

dont want other numpty' s in mkt to know 

but not only that 

is he gonna protect us 

like we protect each other against our own branches 

ie if you guys are rhs .. and my nyk is lhs .. ill say my 

nyk lhs in few 

what concerns me is that i know he' 11 never tell us 

when at risk ... 

After further discussion of whether the Barclays trader would "add huge value to this cartell," the 

traders decided to invite the trader into the chat room for a "1 month trial," with the Bank X 

11 The communications quoted in this Order contain shmthand trader language and many typographical errors. The 

shmthand and errors are explained in brackets within the quotations only when deemed necessary to assist with 

understanding the discussion. 

6 
Trader warning him, presumably facetiously, "mess this up and sleep with one eye open at 

night." 

These chat rooms were the vehicles through which certain Barclays FX traders and 

traders at other banks coordinated attempts to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates, including 

the WM/R 4 p.m. London fix. Certain chat room participants used code words to evade 

detection by their banks' compliance monitoring systems. 

At times during the Relevant Period, in their attempts to manipulate ce1iain benchmarks 

(up or down), Barclays FX traders exchanged the size and direction of the bank's net orders with 

FX traders at other banks and used this information to attempt to coordinate trading strategies. 

The traders at times then used this information to enable one or more traders to attempt to 

manipulate the FX benchmark rates prior to and during the relevant fixing period. 

For example, in one of the chat rooms, if a trader determined that he had fix orders in the 

opposite direction to the chat room group's overall net fixing position approaching the fixing 

window, that trader may have transacted before the fix period with traders outside the private 

chat room, a practice known by market participants as "netting off," rather than transact with 

other traders within the chat room.

12 In ce1iain cases, the goal of this trading strategy was to 

maintain the volume of orders held by chat room members in the direction favored by the 

majority of the private chat room members and limit orders being executed in the opposite 

direction during the fix window. 

If traders in the chat room had net orders in the same direction as what they desired rate 

movement at the fix to be, then the traders would at times either (1) match off these orders with 

traders outside of the chat room in an attempt to reduce the volume of orders in the opposite 

direction transacted during the fix period; (2) transfer their orders to a single trader within the 

chat room who could then execute a single order during the fix period; or (3) transact with 

traders outside of the chat room to increase the volume traded by chat room members during the 

fix window in the direction favored by the private chat room traders. At times, traders also 

increased the volume traded by them at the fix in the direction favored by the chat room traders 

in excess of the volume necessary to manage the risk associated with their banks' net buy or sell 

orders at the fix. At times, these actions were undertaken in order to attempt to manipulate the 

benchmark rate set during the fix period. 

Some examples ofBarclays FX traders' misconduct include: 

In one chat, a Banlc Y Trader and a Barclays trader coordinated their trading in an attempt 

to manipulate a WM/R 4 p.m. London fix. At 3:43:50, the Barclays trader asked the Banlc Y 

trader whether he needed to buy Euros in the market in the forthcoming fix. The Bank Y trader 

responded that he had a net buy order for the fix, which he subsequently confirmed as totaling 

105 million. At 3:44:04, the Banlc Y trader offered to transfer that net buy order to the Bm·clays 

trader. The Bm·clays trader replied "maybe" and then stated that he had a net buy order for 150 

million. 

12 The Commission does not consider that the netting off of orders (or the decision not to net off) ahead of fixes is 

inappropriate in all circumstances. 

7 
The traders had the following exchange: 

Bat·clays Trader: 

Bank Y Trader: 

Bank Y Trader: 

Bat·clays Trader: 

3:46:53 

3:46:56 

3:46:59 

3:47:11 

3:47:12 

i'd prefer we join forces 

perfick 

lets do this ... 

lets double team them 

YESssssssssssss 

Immediately after the fixing window, the traders congratulated themselves: 

Barclays Trader: 

Bank Y Trader: 

4:03:25 

4:03:45 

4:03:46 

4:03:48 

sml rumour we haven't lost it 

we 

do 

dollarrr 

In another chat, traders for Barclays and three other banks exchanged positions in a chat 

room leading into the WM/R 4 p.m. fix. The Bank Y trader said "it cant be a good day to be 

[right hand side]." 13 Once the four traders determined they were all the same direction, the 

Barclays trader asked if "we gonna be able to get it to 05" to which the Bank Y trader responded 

"is that the troyal flm we." After the fixing window closed the Banlc X trader said "nice call" and 

the chat room members gave their "scores" or profits from the fix. The chat room members each 

claimed they made between $60,000 and $220,000. 

4. Barclays Traders' Attempts to Manipulate the Submission Based 

CME/EMTA Rate through False Reports 

Bat·clays provided indicative bids and offers to the CME for the fixing of the 

CME/EMT A Rate on certain days between August 2009 until August 2011. On at least a few 

occasions, a Bat·clays FX trader attempted to manipulate the CME/EMT A Rate by providing 

false reports concerning his view of the current prevailing bids and offers to the CME in order to 

move the CME/EMT A Rate up or down in whatever direction would benefit his trading positions 

or the trading positions of other banks. The Barclays FX trader coordinated, through an 

electronic chat room, with traders from other banlcs who also made submissions to skew their 

indicative bids and offers to try to move the CME/EMT A Rate in the direction they desired. 

For example, in one chat including a Barclays FX trader, one RUB/USD trader suggested 

"we should all lower fix by several kopecks" to which another trader replied "yes."14 A third 

trader agreed that "it is a right idea to lower the fix by a few kopecks." The Barclays FX trader 

responded "so what, 5 kopecks and all/everyone is splendid." After that conversation, the 

Bat·clays trader submitted an artificially low indicative bid and offer to the CME, consistent with 

13 If an FX trader has orders to sell of the first currency listed in any currency pair, it is often referred to as being on 

the left-hand side, or "lhs." If an FX trader references right hand side, or "rhs," it indicates that the FX trader is a 

buyer of the first cunency listed in a currency pair. 14 RUB/USD chatroom language is in Russian and quotations come from an unofficial translation. 

8 
his conversation with the other traders, that was used by the CME to calculate the final 

CME/EMT A Rate. 

A bank's trading positions are not legitimate or permissible factors on which to base a 

bank's submission of bids and offers for purposes of determining the CME/EMT A Rate. 

5. Respondent Lacked Adequate Internal Controls 

During the Relevant Period, Barclays failed to adequately assess the risks associated with 

its FX traders pmiicipating in the fixing of certain FX benchmark rates. Barclays also lacked 

adequate internal controls in order to prevent its FX traders from engaging in improper 

communications with certain FX traders at other banks. Barclays lacked sufficient policies, 

procedures and training specifically governing participation in trading around the FX 

benchmarks rates and had inadequate policies pertaining to, or insufficient oversight of, its FX 

traders' use of chat rooms or other electronic messaging. 

In approximately March 2012, Bm·clays received a customer complaint regarding 

potential inappropriate disclosure of customer information in an internal FX chatroom. Bm·clays 

then undertook an investigation ofFX chatroom usage. Following and as a result ofthat 

investigation, in consultation with FX management and Legal and Compliance representatives, 

beginning in August 2012, Bm·clays undertook a process of instructing FX traders to cease 

participation in multi-bank chat rooms, and issued guidance and enhanced training with respect 

to the sharing of client information. On October, 22, 2012, FX traders at Barclays were formally 

instructed to cease participation in multi-bank chatrooms. 

Furthermore, in June 2013, Barclays commenced an internal investigation of possible 

misconduct by it FX Traders relating to FX benchmark rates. On October 25, 2013, Bm·clays 

reported to the CFTC and other governmental authorities' preliminary findings of questionable 

conduct. 

IV. 

LEGAL DISCUSSION 

A. Barclays, Through the Acts of Certain Traders, Attempted to Manipulate FX 

Benchmark Rates 

Together, Sections 6(c), 15 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Act prohibit acts of attempted 

manipulation. 7 U.S.C. §§9, 13b and 13(a)(2) (2012). Section 9(a)(2) ofthe Act makes it 

unlawful for "[a]ny person to ... attempt to manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate 

commerce, or for future delivery on or subject to the rules of any registered entity .... " 7 

U.S.C. § 13(a)(2) (2012). Sections 6(c) and 6(d) ofthe Act authorize the Commission to serve a 

complaint and provide for the imposition of, among other things, civil monetary penalties and 

cease and desist orders if the Commission "has reason to believe that any person" has attempted 

15 Section 6( c) was amended effective August 15, 2011. For conduct occurring on or after that date, the relevant 

Section of the Act is now Section 6(c)(4)(A), 7 U.S.C. § 9(4)(A) (2012). 

9 
to manipulate the market price of any commodity, in interstate commerce, or otherwise is 

violating or has violated any of the provisions of the Act. 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13b (2012). 

With respect to conduct on or after August 15, 2011, in addition to Sections 6( c), 6( d) 

and 9(a)(2), Section 6(c)(3) of the Act prohibits the attempted manipulation of the price of any 

commodity in interstate commerce. 7 U.S.C. § 9(3) (2012). Commission Regulation 180.2, 17 

C.F.R. § 180.2 (2014), which became effective on August 15, 2011, in relevant part, makes it 

"unlawful to ... directly or indirectly ... to attempt to manipulate, the price of ... any 

commodity in interstate commerce." Regulation 180.2 codifies Section 6( c )(3). 

Two elements are required to prove an attempted manipulation: (1) an intent to affect the 

market price, and (2) an overt act in fmiherance of that intent. See In re Hohenberg Bros. Co., 

[1975-77 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 20,271, at 21,477 (CFTC Feb. 18, 

1977); CFTC v. Bradley, 408 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1220 (N.D. Okla. 2005). To prove the intent 

element of attempted manipulation, it must be shown that Bm·clays FX traders "acted (or failed 

to act) with the purpose or conscious object of causing or effecting a price or price trend in the 

market that did not reflect the legitimate forces of supply and demand." In re Indiana Farm 

Bureau Coop. Ass'n, [1982-1984 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 21,796, at 

27,283 (CFTC Dec. 17, 1982). "[W]hile knowledge of relevant market conditions is probative of 

intent, it is not necessary to prove that the accused knew to any particular degree of certainty that 

his actions would create an artificial price. It is enough to present evidence from which it may 

reasonably be inferred that the accused 'consciously desire[d] that result, whatever the likelihood 

of that result happening from his conduct."' Id. (quoting US. v. US. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 

445 (1978)). A profit motive may also be evidence of intent, although profit motive is not a 

necessary element of an attempted manipulation. See In re DiPlacido, [2007-2009 Transfer 

Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 30,970, at 62,484 (CFTC Nov. 5, 2008) (citing In re 

Hohenberg Bros. Co., [1975-1977 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) at 21,478)), 

aff'd, 364 Fed. Appx. 657, No. 08-5559-ag, 2009 WL 3326624 (2d Cir. 2009). It is also not 

necessary that there be an actual effect on price. See CFTC v. Amaranth Advisors, L.L. C., 554 F. 

Supp.2d 523, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 

Here, as evidenced by the communications and other facts set fmih above, cetiain 

Barclays FX traders specifically intended to affect the fixing of certain FX benchmarks, 

including the WM/R Rates and CME/EMTA Rate. Their intent is also made clear by the 

evidence that their motive was to benefit Bm·clays' trading positions or the trading positions of 

other banks. Bm·clays, through its traders, took overt acts in furtherance of intent to affect the 

fixings of certain FX benchmarks, including the WM/R Rates and CME/EMTA Rate. 

Accordingly, Bm·clays engaged in acts of attempted manipulation of certain FX benchmarks, 

commodities in interstate commerce, in violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2), 7 U.S.C. §§ 

9, 13b and 13(a)(2) (2012). Additionally, with respect to conduct occmTing on or after August 

15, 2011, Barclays engaged in acts of attempted manipulation in violation of Section 6(c)(3), 7 

U.S.C. § 9(3) (2012), and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.F.R. § 180.2 (2014). 

10 
B. Barclays Made False, Misleading or Knowingly Inaccurate Reports to the CME 

Relating to the Russian Ruble/ U.S. Dollar CME/EMTA Rate 

Section 9(a)(2) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person "knowingly to deliver or 

cause to be delivered for transmission through the mails or interstate commerce by telegraph, 

telephone, wireless, or other means of communication false or misleading or knowingly 

inaccurate reports concerning crop or market information or conditions that affect or tend to 

affect the price of any commodity in interstate commerce .... " 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(2) (2006); 

United States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 691 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Valencia, 394 F.3d 

352, 354-55 (5th Cir. 2004); see also CFTC v. Johnson, 408 F. Supp. 2d 259, 267 (S.D. Tex. 

2005). 

In limited instances between August 2009 until August 2011, Bm·clays, acting through 

one of its traders, knowingly provided or caused to be provided to the CME false, misleading or 

knowingly inaccurate reports concerning the bids and offers at which it could execute a $100,000 

RUB/USD spot transaction for next-day value in the Moscow marketplace for purposes of the 

CME/EMTA Rate calculation. The Bm·clays trader's reports were also caused to be delivered 

through the mails or interstate commerce through the daily dissemination and publication 

globally, including in the United States, of the results of the survey via the Reuters, CME and 

EMT A websites. The CME also distributes the CME/EMTA Rate through its normal 

distribution channels. Bat·clays's CME/EMTA submissions contained market information 

concerning the prevailing market rates at which a $100,000 RUB/USD spot transaction for nextday value in the Moscow marketplace could be executed. Such market information affects or 

tends to affect the prices of commodities in interstate commerce, including the rate at which the 

CME/EMTA Rate is fixed. 

During the relevant period, on ce1iain occasions, Barclays' CME/EMT A Rate survey 

responses were false, misleading or inaccurate because the bids and offers it submitted were 

skewed to benefit trading positions held by the Barclays' trader or traders at other banks, and 

thus based on illegitimate factors. The Barclays trader knowingly submitted the false bids and 

offers. By submitting false bids or offers in its survey responses, Bat·clays conveyed false, 

misleading or inaccurate market information that the bids and offers it submitted were based on 

and related solely to its reasonable judgment and honest assessment of the bids and offers at 

which it could execute a $100,000 RUB/USD spot transaction for next-day value in the Moscow 

marketplace and were truthful and reliable. 

By such conduct, Barclays violated Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 13(a)(2) 

(2006). 

C. Respondent Aided and Abetted the Attempts of Certain Traders at Other Banks to 

Manipulate FX Benchmark Rates 

Pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act, liability as an aider and abettor requires proof that: 

(1) the Act was violated, (2) the aider and abettor had knowledge of the wrongdoing underlying 

the violation, and (3) the aider and abettor intentionally assisted the primary wrongdoer. See 7 

U.S.C. § 13c(a) (2012); In re Sharokh Nikkhah, [1999-2000 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. 

11 
Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,129, at 49,888 n.28 (CFTC May 12, 2000). Although actual knowledge ofthe 

primary wrongdoer's conduct is required, knowledge of the unlawfulness of such conduct is not 

necessarily required to be demonstrated. See In re Lincolnwood Commodities, Inc., [1982-1984 

Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 21,986, at 28,255 (CFTC Jan. 31, 1984). 

Knowing assistance can be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances. Id. See also 

In re Buckwalter, [1990-1992 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 24,995, at 37,686 

(CFTC Jan. 25, 1991). 

Here, as evidenced by the foregoing acts of coordination to benefit respective trading 

positions, FX traders at other banks attempted to manipulate the WM/R, CME/EMT A and other 

FX benchmark rates in violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2), 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b and 

13(a)(2) (2012). Additionally, with respect to conduct occurring on or after August 15, 2011 FX 

traders at other banks violated Section 6(c)(3), 7 U.S.C. § 9(3), and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.2 (2014). As evidenced above, Barclays, through the acts of certain of its FX traders, aided 

and abetted the attempts of traders at other banks to manipulate the FX benchmark rates in 

violation of the Act. 

D. Barclays is Liable for the Acts of its Agents 

Section 2(a)(l)(B) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2(a)(1)(B) (2012), and Regulation 1.2, 17 

C.F.R. § 1.2 (2014), provide that "[t]he act, omission, or failure of any official, agent or other 

person acting for any individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust within the scope 

of his employment or office shall be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such individual, 

association, partnership, corporation or trust[.]" Pursuant to Section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 

Commission Regulation 1 .2, strict liability is imposed on principals for the actions of its agents. 

See, e.g., Rosenthal & Co. v. CFTC, 802 F.2d 963, 966 (7th Cir. 1986); Dohmen-Ramirez & 

Wellington Advisory, Inc. v. CFTC, 837 F.2d 847,857-58 (9thCir. 1988). 

Bm·clays is liable for the acts, omissions and failures of any traders who acted as its 

employees and/or agents in relation to the conduct described above. Accordingly, Bm·clays 

violated Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b and 13(a)(2)(2012), by 

engaging in attempted manipulation and aiding and abetting attempted manipulation. 

Additionally, with respect to conduct occurring on or after August 15, 2011, Barclays is liable 

for violating Section 6(c)(3), 7 U.S.C. § 9(3), 13(a)(2) (2012), and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.F.R. § 

180.2 (2014), as set forth above. 

v. 

FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS 

Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that Respondent violated Sections 6( c), 

6(d) and 9(a)(2) ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b and 13(a)(2) (2012), and for conduct occurring on 

or after August 15, 2011, Section 6(c)(3), 7 U.S.C. § 9(3) and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.F.R. 

§ 180.2 (2014). 

12 
VI. 

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT 

Respondent, without admitting or denying the findings or conclusions herein has 

submitted the Offer in which it: 

A. Acknowledges receipt of service of this Order; 

B. Admits the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect to this Order only and for any 

action or proceeding brought or authorized by the Commission based on violation of or 

enforcement of this Order; 

C. Waives: 

1. the filing and service of a complaint and notice of hearing; 

2. a hearing; 

3. all post-hearing procedures; 

4. judicial review by any court; 

5. any and all objections to the participation by any member of the Commission's 

staff in the Commission's consideration of the Offer; 

6. any and all claims that it may possess under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 

U.S.C. § 504 (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (2012), and/or the rules promulgated by 

the Commission in conformity therewith, Pmi 148 of the Commission's 

Regulations, 17 C.F.R. §§ 148.1-30 (2014), relating to, or arising from, this 

proceeding; 

7. any and all claims that it may possess under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, §§ 201-253, 110 Stat. 

847, 857-868 (1996), as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-28, § 8302, 121 Stat. 112, 

204-205 (2007), relating to, or arising from, this proceeding; and 

8. any claims of Double Jeopardy based on the institution of this proceeding or the 

entry in this proceeding of any order imposing a civil monetary penalty or any 

other relief; 

D. Stipulates that the record basis on which this Order is entered shall consist solely of the 

findings contained in this Order to which Respondent has consented in the Offer; and 

E. Consents, solely on the basis of the Offer, to the Commission's entry of this Order that: 

1. makes findings by the Commission that Respondent violated Sections 6( c), 6( d) 

and 9(a)(2) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13b and 13(a)(2) (2012), and for conduct 

13 
occurring on or after August 15, 2011, Section 6(c)(3), 7 U.S.C. § 9(3) and 

Regulation 180.2, 17 C.P.R.§ 180.2 (2014); 

2. orders Respondent to cease and desist from violating Sections 6(c)(3) and 9(a)(2) 

ofthe Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9(3) and 13(a)(2) (2012) and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.P.R. 

§ 180.2 (2014); 

3. orders Respondent to pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $400,000,000 

plus post-judgment interest; and 

4. orders Respondent and its successors and assigns to comply with the conditions 

and undertakings consented to in the Offer and as set forth in Part VII of this 

Order. 

P. Respondent represents that it has already undertaken ce1iain steps intended to make 

reasonable effmis to ensure the integrity of the PX markets discussed above, and 

including, but not limited to, the following: 

1. Prohibiting all PX spot traders from participating in multi-bank chat rooms; 

2. Strengthening surveillance of PX desks; 

3. Mandating at least annual training for all PX employees concerning appropriate 

market conduct; 

4. In October 2012, issuing GPX Market Colour Guidelines, which outlined what 

constituted an acceptable use of market information for communications with 

clients; 

5. In December 2012, issuing Guidelines on Information Exchange with 

Competitors, which specified that commercially sensitive information should not 

be shared with competitors; 

6. In June 2013, commencing an internal investigation of possible misconduct by its 

PX traders relating to PX benchmark rates; 

7. On October 25, 2013 repmiing to the CPTC and other governmental authorities 

preliminary findings of questionable conduct; 

8. Reviewing Barclays' business practices and systems and controls, which included 

remedial efforts across the banlc at the Group, Compliance and front office 

levels. Among other projects that Bm·clays undertook: 

a. At the Group level, an independent review of Barclays' business practices 

was conducted, which, among other things, led to the introduction of a 

14 
new code of conduct which sets out the ethical and professional behaviors 

expected of employees; 

b. At the Group level and with respect to its investment banking operations, 

significant work to strengthen the role of Compliance. The work has 

included increasing Compliance's visibility on board and management 

committees, developing a process and repmiing framework to support 

monitoring and verification activity undertaken by Compliance, holding 

standardized and structured monthly business line meetings between 

Compliance and the Global Head of the business they cover, formalizing a 

breach review process to ensure consistent and effective treatment of 

Compliance policy breaches, enhancing and transitioning to a centralized 

model for trade surveillance and e-communications surveillance and 

increasing Compliance's budget for staff and training; 

c. Barclays unde1iook work on Front Office Risks and Controls, a group that 

was established in December 2012 and acts as a single coordination point 

to focus Barclays' approach to risk and control within and across the Front 

Office. Bm·clays also unde1iook the development of a new Global 

Supervision policy, which was followed by a training program that all 

supervisors were required to complete by the end ofQ3 2012 and the 

appointment of a Chief Controls Officer who is responsible for 

coordinating all control elements; 

d. Barclays has conducted, and continues to conduct, significant reviews of 

risks relating to benchmarks and conflicts of interest, including: 

1. A project designed to evaluate all benchmark rates for which 

Barclays was engaged in a subjective submission process, and as a 

result of which Barclays exited 1 0 benchmark submissions, 

automated 7 benchmark submissions, and implemented additional 

supervisory procedures for 13 benchmark contributions; and 

11. A forward looking project to define a control framework for 

potential economic conflicts of interest between Bm·clays and third 

parties that arise from trading activities across products, 

benchmarks and client order types. 

Upon consideration, the Commission has determined to accept the Offer. 

15 
VII. 

ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

A. Respondent shall cease and desist from violating Sections 6(c)(3) and 9(a)(2) ofthe Act, 

7 U.S.C. §§ 9(3) and 13(a)(2) (2012) ofthe Act and Regulation 180.2, 17 C.P.R.§ 180.2 

(2014). 

B. Respondent shall pay a civil monetary penalty of $400 Million Dollars ($400,000,000), 

within ten (1 0) days of the date of entry of this Order (the "CMP Obligation"). If the 

CMP Obligation is not paid in full within ten (10) days of the date of entry of this Order, 

then post judgment interest shall accrue on the CMP Obligation beginning on the date of 

entry of this Order and shall be determined by using the Treasury Bill rate prevailing on 

the date of entry of this Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (2012). Respondent shall 

pay the CMP Obligation by electronic funds transfer, U.S. postal money order, certified 

check, bank cashier's check, or bank money order. If payment is to be made other than 

by electronic funds transfer, then the payment shall be made payable to the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission and sent to the address below: 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Division of Enforcement 

ATTN: Accounts Receivables--- AMZ 340 

E-mail Box: 9-AMC-AMZ-AR-CFTC 

DOT IF AA/MMAC 

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Telephone: ( 405) 954-7262 

If payment is to be made by electronic funds transfer, Respondent shall contact Nikki 

Gibson or her successor at the above address to receive payment instructions and shall 

fully comply with those instructions. Respondent shall accompany payment of the CMP 

Obligation with a cover letter that identifies the Respondent and the name and docket 

number of this proceeding. The Respondent shall simultaneously transmit copies of the 

cover letter and the form of payment to the Chief Financial Officer, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 

20581. 

C. Respondent and its successors and assigns shall comply with the following undertakings 

set forth in the Offer: 

1. REMEDIATION 

As set forth above in Section VI, paragraph F, Respondent represents that it has 

already undetiaken and continues to undertake extensive remedial measures to 

16 
implement and strengthen its internal controls and procedures relating to its 

participation in the fixing of FX benchmark rates and related supervision of its FX 

traders. With respect to its remediation efforts to the extent not already 

unde1iaken, Respondent undertakes that: 

a. Respondent will implement and improve its internal controls and procedures 

in a manner reasonably designed to ensure the integrity of its pmiicipation in 

the fixing of any FX benchmark rate, including measures to identify and 

address internal or external conflicts of interest; 

b. Its remediation improvements will include internal controls and procedures 

relating to: 

111 measures designed to enhance the detection and deterrence of 

improper communications concerning FX benchmark rates, including 

the form and manner in which communications may occur; 

111 monitoring systems designed to enhance the detection and deterrence 

of trading or other conduct potentially intended to manipulate directly 

or indirectly FX benchmark rates; 

111 periodic audits, at least annually, of Respondent's pmiicipation in the 

fixing of any FX benchmark rate; 

111 supervision of trading desks that participate in the fixing of any FX 

benchmark rate; 

111 routine and on-going training of all traders, supervisors and others who 

are involved in the fixing of any FX benchmark rate; 

111 processes for the periodic but routine review of written and oral 

communications of any traders, supervisors and others who are 

involved in the fixing of any FX benchmark rate with the review being 

documented and documentation being maintained for a period of three 

years; and 

111 continuing to implement its system for reporting, handling and 

investigating any suspected misconduct or questionable, unusual or 

unlawful activity relating to the fixing of any FX benchmark rate with 

escalation to compliance and legal, and with reporting of material 

matters to the executive management of Barclays and the Commission, 

as appropriate; the Respondent shall maintain the record basis of the 

handling of each such matter for a period of three years. 

c. Within 120 days of the entry of this Order, Respondent shall make a report to 

the Commission, through the Division, concerning its remediation efforts, 

17 
prior to and since the entry of this Order. Within 365 days of the entry of this 

Order, Respondent shall submit a report to the Commission, through the 

Division, explaining how it has complied with the undertakings set fmih 

herein. The report shall contain a certification from a representative of the 

Respondent's Executive Management, after consultation with the 

Respondent's chief compliance officer(s), that the Respondent has complied 

with the undertakings set forth above, and that it has established policies, 

procedures, and controls to satisfy the undertakings set fmih in the Order. 

2. COOPERATION WITH THE COMMISSION 

In this action, and in any investigation or other action instituted by the 

Commission, related to the subject matter of this action, Respondent shall 

cooperate fully and expeditiously with the Commission, including the Division, 

As part of such cooperation, Respondent agrees to the following for a period of 

three (3) years from the date of the entry of this Order, or until all related 

investigations and litigations in which the Commission, including the Division, is 

a pmiy, are concluded, including through the appellate review process, whichever 

period is longer: 

1. Preserve all records relating to the subject matter of this 

proceeding, including, but not limited to, audio files, electronic 

mail, other documented communications, and trading records; 

2. Comply fully, promptly, completely, and truthfully with all 

inquiries and requests for non-privileged information or 

documents; 

3. Provide authentication of documents and other evidentiary 

material; 

4. Provide copies of non-privileged documents within Bm·clays' 

possession, custody or control; 

5. Subject to applicable laws and regulations, Barclays will make 

its best efforts to produce any current (as of the time of the 

request) officer, director, employee, or agent ofBarclays, 

regardless of the individual's location, and at such location that 

minimizes Commission travel expenditures, to provide 

assistance at any trial, proceeding, or Commission 

investigation related to the subject matter of this proceeding, 

including, but not limited to, requests for testimony, 

depositions, and/or interviews, and to encourage them to testify 

completely and truthfully in any such proceeding, trial, or 

investigation; and 

18 
6. Subject to applicable laws and regulations, Bm·clays will make 

its best effmis to assist in locating and contacting any prior (as 

of the time of the request) officer, director, employee or agent 

of Barclays; 

Respondent also agrees that it will not undertake any act that would limit its 

ability to cooperate fully with the Commission. Bm·clays will designate an agent 

located in the United States of America to receive all requests for information 

pursuant to these Undertakings, and shall provide notice regarding the identity of 

such Agent to the Division upon entry of this Order. Should Bm·clays seek to 

change the designated agent to receive such requests, notice of such intention 

shall be given to the Division fourteen (14) days before it occurs. Any person 

designated to receive such request shall be located in the United States of 

America. 

3. PROHIBITED OR CONFLICTING UNDERTAKINGS 

Should the Unde1iakings herein be prohibited by, or be contrary to the provisions 

of any obligations imposed on Respondent by any presently existing, or 

hereinafter enacted or promulgated laws, regulations, regulatory mandates, or the 

rules or definitions issued by a Benchmark Publisher, then Respondent shall 

promptly transmit notice to the Commission (through the Division) of such 

prohibition or conflict, and shall meet and confer in good faith with the 

Commission (through the Division) to reach an agreement regarding possible 

modifications to the Undertakings herein sufficient to resolve such inconsistent 

obligations. In the interim, Respondent will abide by the obligations imposed by 

the law, regulations, regulatory mandates and Benchmark Publishers' rules and 

definitions. Nothing in these Undertakings shall limit, restrict or narrow any 

obligations pursuant to the Act or the Commission's Regulations promulgated 

thereunder, including, but not limited to, Regulations 1.31 and 1.35, 17 C.F.R. §§ 

1.31 and 1.35 (2014), in effect now or in the future. 

4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 

Respondent agrees that neither it nor any of its successors and assigns, agents or 

employees under its authority or control shall take any action or make any public 

statement denying, directly or indirectly, any findings or conclusions in this Order 

or creating, or tending to create, the impression that this Order is without a factual 

basis; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall affect Respondent's 

(i) testimonial obligations, or (ii) right to take positions in other proceedings to 

which the Commission is not a party. Respondent and its successors and assigns 

shall undertake all steps necessary to ensure that all of its agents and/or 

employees under its authority or control understand and comply with this 

agreement. 

19 
5. PARTIAL SATISFACTION 

Respondent understands and agrees that any acceptance by the Commission of 

partial payment of Respondent's CMP Obligation shall not be deemed a waiver of 

its obligation to make further payments pursuant to this Order, or a waiver of the 

Commission's right to seek to compel payment of any remaining balance. 

The provisions of this Order shall be effective as of this date. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: May 20,2015 

20