CBOT RULE VIOLATION:
Rule 538.C. Related Position
The related position component of an EFRP must be the cash commodity underlying the Exchange contract or a by-product, a related product or an OTC derivative instrument of such commodity that has a reasonable degree of price correlation to the commodity underlying the Exchange contract. The related position component of an EFRP may not be a futures contract or an option on a futures contract.
Each EFRP requires a bona fide transfer of ownership of the underlying asset between the parties or a bona fide, legally binding contract between the parties consistent with relevant market conventions for the particular related position transaction.
The execution of an EFRP transaction may not be contingent upon the execution of another EFRP or related position transaction between the parties where the transactions result in the offset of the related position without the incurrence of market risk that is material in the context of the related position transactions.
Rule 534 Wash Trades Prohibited
No person shall place or accept buy and sell orders in the same product and expiration month, and, for a put or call option, the same strike price, where the person knows or reasonably should know that the purpose of the orders is to avoid taking a bona fide market position exposed to market risk (transactions commonly known or referred to as wash trades or wash sales). Buy and sell orders for different accounts with common beneficial ownership that are entered with the intent to negate market risk or price competition shall also be deemed to violate the prohibition on wash trades. Additionally, no person shall knowingly execute or accommodate the execution of such orders by direct or indirect means.
Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which Gold-Eagle Cooperative (“Gold-Eagle”) neither admitted nor denied the rule violation upon which the penalty is based, on February 9, 2017, a Panel of the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”) Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that on January 4, 2016, Gold-Eagle executed an Exchange for Physical (“EFP”) transaction in the Corn Futures market that consisted of a simultaneous exchange of a futures position without the exchange of a related cash position, thereby executing a non-bona fide EFP. The Panel further found that Gold-Eagle executed the transaction for the purpose of transferring positions between the two accounts, and that Gold-Eagle maintained ownership and control of the accounts on both sides of the transaction. The Panel concluded that Gold-Eagle thereby violated CBOT Rules 538.C. and 534.
In accordance with the settlement offer, the Panel ordered Gold-Eagle to pay a fine $25,000.
February 13, 2017