A statement by ASIC on Tuesday said the penalty was handed down by the corporate regulator’s Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP).
“The MDP found it had reasonable grounds to believe that Wilsons contravened ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Competition in Exchange Markets) 2011 (the ‘Rules’) relating to the provision of regulatory data,” the statement said.
Market participants acting on behalf of clients are obligated by the ASIC Rules to “provide a unique reference to the market operator”.
But on 15 November 2016, Wilsons was found to have made 49 orders to purchase shares on behalf of a client using a generic code for the origin of order instead of the client’s unique reference number.
Additionally, on 3 February 2016, ASIC found Wilsons had “incorrectly provided a generic code for another client’s origin of transaction as a seller, instead of the client’s unique account number”.
In the months of May and August in 2016, Wilsons was again found to have used generic instead of the client’s unique account numbers codes on six instances.
“ASIC Regulatory Guide 223 acknowledges that there may be situations where, having taken reasonable steps, a market participant is still unable to provide a unique notation.
“However, it is incumbent on the market participant to explore all options reasonably open to it to ensure that its systems and processes are adequate to capture and report the required data to the market operator,” the statement said.
“This is an ongoing obligation which may require the market participant to enhance their existing systems and processes.”
Equity Trustees hires BNP Paribas US CEO
Future Fund restructures, property head departs
AMP appoints John O’Sullivan to board
Is this as good as it gets?
Renewables will drive next industrial revolution
China's MSCI inclusion has room to grow