在股票交易市场制造假单，以抬高或降低股票价格，中年炒股手在八个月内，从差价合约的交易中，赚取超过25万元。罪行被揭发后，星期一（10月28日）被判九个月监禁。

46岁的被告吴伟贤（译音，Oh Wee Hian）面对六项抵触证券与期货法令（Securities and Futures Act）的罪状，他早前承认其中两项，余项交由法官下判时一并考量。

综合警察部队文告和法庭文件，股票的差价合约（Contracts for Differences）不涉及母股的交易，仅以结算价与合约价的差额作现金结算，投资者可在不持有股票的情况下买卖股票。

案情显示，被告当时在投资公司IG Asia设有投资户头，而IG Asia会以差价合约方式进行交易，根据有关股票在股市的实时价格来定价。

2020年8月，被告萌生歪念，想要通过差价合约交易赚取利润。他想出一个欺诈计划，针对在新加坡交易所的六种不同股票，提交假单来影响股价。

延伸阅读
串谋抬高股价获利逾10万元 男子判监16个月罚款逾万元
与上司等人串谋抬高公司股价 新丝路集团前财务总监坐牢12周
提交假单后，被告就可以抬高或降低股票价格，让自己进行差价合约的交易。在交易完成后，他就会删除这些假单，以从结算价与合约价的差额中赚取盈利。

2020年8月4日至2021年3月26日，被告买卖鋐枟控股（Bonvests Holdings）、外滩中心投资（Bund Center Investment）、群策环球控股（GSH Corporation）、旅店置业（Hotel Properties）、金光置地（Sinarmas Land）和海峡贸易（Straits Trading）的差价合约时，在母股制造假市场，然后再买卖有关差价合约。

被告共215次提交假单行骗，从这六种股票的差价合约交易中，获取约25万5384元。

商业事务局和金融管理局后来展开联合调查，分析可疑交易报告，揭发了被告的罪行。当局事后也冻结被告的投资和银行户头。被告至今已做出全额赔偿。

控方指出，被告预谋干案，操纵股价为自己牟取利益，并多次在交易市场下假单。尽管被告在事发时患有持续性抑郁症，但控方指出他的病情与罪行毫无关联。

看在被告的犯罪时长和严重性，外加罪行也难以察觉等因素，控方对此要求法官判他坐牢11个月至14个月。
---
该帖荣获当日十大第3，奖励楼主15分以及22华新币，时间：2024-11-03 22:00:01。
---
该帖荣获当日十大第4，奖励楼主12分以及18华新币，时间：2024-11-04 22:00:01。
---
该帖荣获当日十大第4，奖励楼主12分以及18华新币，时间：2024-11-05 22:00:01。

交易系统有漏洞吧。

这难道不是市场本身的问题吗

被人发现了漏洞，结果输不起掀桌子了。

会低于市价成交，结果被人发现并利用，这个人赚了一千多万。后来也是掀桌子抓人。

而且做市商应该有对冲手段避险
看英文报道，他应该是在股市小额成交，引起股价变动
在CFD端加杠杆套利，做市商没有想到这个吗？
如果是不同人打配合，岂不是不算作弊？毕竟股市那边是真的成交了的
理解不了啊，按理说，几个月赚几十万，也不算多，怎么会被发现呢？
它自己是dealer，比散户有一点优势，如果他没有dealer的身份，是不是就不违规？这是一个问题

meaning a CFD customer always has to hit the bid or ask price (or scarifies the spread) and being last in the queue for a limit order. A real trade at the SGX exchange isn't required for a CFD order to be executed. As long as the bid-ask spread is wide enough, a low sell price and high buy price within the illiquid stock's bid-ask spread can trigger CFD buy and sell actions.

This practice is illegal, as it involves the trader effectively "self-dealing" or hitting his own orders without being seen on the exchange, but taking place on the OTC side. This lack of transparency is one reason that U.S. has banned CFDs, as brokers often end up betting against customers, similar to old time bucket shops. To prevent this, brokers like IG could simply remove illiquid stocks from their CFD offerings or set filters to ensure only small trades trigger automated orders, while manually checking or hedging out big quantity trades .

However, since the vast majority of retail CFD customers (over 95% or even more I think) lose money—and these losses typically go to the counterparty's pocket, which is IG in this case—there's little incentive for IG to hedge against these small retail customers.

whether he is a professional trader or not, it doesn't matter. an intentional, manipulative hitting-oneself trade is always breaching rules (even laws)

From 2005 to 2009, Oh worked as a dealer at brokerages UOB Kay Hian, Credit Suisse Securities (Singapore) and Citigroup Global Markets Singapore Securities where he honed his stock market trading skills.

He was also a web developer and had been unemployed since 2018.

其次，告他的不是IG,而是SGX发现然后转给警察局和MAS

The police said on Oct 29 that Oh’s conviction was the result of a joint investigation carried out by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) of the Singapore Police Force and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), following a referral from the Singapore Exchange Regulation.

最后，其他几个类似的案例
In March 2017, former DBS Vickers trader Dennis Tey Thean Yang was sentenced to 16 weeks in prison for spoofing the securities market and making a profit of $30,239 from his illicit trades.

It was the “first conviction of market misconduct under the joint investigation arrangement with the CAD”, MAS said in a statement then after Tey’s sentencing.

The second case occurred in July 2021 when former account manager Ee Cho Lian was sentenced to six weeks’ jail and fined $30,000 for 107 false orders and 60 spoof trades where he made a profit of $24,196.

Oh’s conviction and sentencing is the third such reported case, and his illegal $255,385 profit is the largest amount so far.

He has since made full restitution to IG Asia.

交易代表利用别人的户头进行交易，制造假市提交假单，以抬高或降低股价，在四个月内从差价合约的交易中赚取3万零239元利润。

这是第一起被新加坡金融管理局和商业事务局联合调查组提控的案件，两家机构是在2015年3月成立联合调查组，对付这类白领犯罪活动。

马来西亚籍被告郑添杨（32岁）案发时是星展唯高达证券（DBS Vickers）的交易代表，昨天承认23项抵触证券与期货法令的控状。

控方促严惩以阻慑

控方表示刑罚必须具有阻慑作用，促请法官判他坐牢四个月至六个月，辩方则要求罚款。法官案展本月22日判刑。

股票的差价合约（Contracts for Differences，简称CFD）不涉及母股的交易，仅以结算价与合约价的差额作现金结算。投资者能在不持有股票的情况下，卖出股票。

调查显示，被告清楚他与IG Asia和CMC Markets以差价合约方式进行交易，一般上是根据股票在股市的实时价格来定价。他清楚若能影响股票价格，便能通过进行差价合约交易赚取利润。因此，他想出一个欺诈计划，假造假市，在股票市场提交假单影响股价，好让自己在有利可图情况下进行差价合约的交易。被告在交易完成后，便删除这些假单。

被告专门选交易量很少的股票，以减少真正交易的可能性。他也选择那些最高买价和最高卖价差距大的股票。此外，被告在两个不同的市场，即股票市场和证券商提供的差价合约市场进行交易，以免交易模式引起怀疑。

利用他人户头交易

为掩饰身份，被告使用父母和客户名下的五个户头进行交易，这些户头包括股票交易户头和差价合约户头。

2012年10月24日至2013年1月8日，被告买卖国浩置地（GuocoLand）、中国航油（China Aviation Oil）、中国能源（China Energy）和亚洲电力（Asia Power）等17只股票的差价合约时，在母股制造假市场，然后再买卖有关差价合约。被告共提交至少100张假单，从50个差价合约交易中获利。

A Contract for Difference (CFD) is a derivative that allows
investors to speculate on the future price movements of the
underlying asset, without having to own them. CFDs are
available for a wide range of assets ranging from shares to
commodities, and they are traded on margin i.e. investors only
pay a small percentage of the value of the underlying shares.
While the risks are higher if the underlying counter were to move
against the investor’s position, the rewards are also higher if
the counter were to move in favour of the investor. CFDs are
generally traded over-the-counter with a CFD provider, as
the counterparty to the trades. When trading in CFDs, the
investor first enters into an opening trade with a CFD provider.
The investor subsequently enters into a trade to close his CFD
position and the profits or losses are determined based on the
price difference.
Ee Cho Lian (Ee) traded in CFDs offered by City Index Pte Ltd
(City Index), which priced these contracts by referencing the
live best bid-ask prices of the underlying securities listed on the
Singapore Exchange (SGX).
Ee saw an opportunity to exploit City Index’s pricing mechanism
to reap unlawful profits. His first attempt to capitalise on this
opportunity took place in April 2018. He placed an order to buy
10,000 Mandarin Oriental International Limited (MANO) CFDs at
US$2.30 via his City Index CFD trading account. At that time,
the best ask price of the underlying MANO shares on the SGX,
and accordingly the price of MANO CFDs offered by City Index,
was US$2.37. Ee’s buy order price was obviously too low for
the order to be executed. Ee used his shares trading account to
place a sell order on SGX for MANO shares at US$2.30. This selorder triggered City Index’s pricing mechanism to reduce its ask
price for MANO CFD, and enabled Ee to purchase the MANO
CFDs from City Index at US$2.30. Once he had purchased his
CFDs, Ee quickly cancelled his sell order for the shares. Ee then
took similar steps to close his CFD position and reap a profit.
He placed a sell order for CFDs at a price higher than City
Index’s offer, and then used his shares trading account to place
a buy order to push up City Index’s offer to match his CFD
sell order price. As a result, Ee successfully closed off his CFD
position at US$2.36, significantly higher than the previously
offered price of US$2.29.
All this took place within three minutes and netted Ee profits of
US$600. This conduct of placing orders on the stock exchange
for a brief moment before deleting the order, without a genuine
intention to trade, is better known as spoofing and it is illegal.
Investigations revealed that Ee carried out several more rounds
of such CFD trades from 5 April 2018 to 14 December 2018.
He even used CFD trading accounts belonging to his friends,
without authorisation, to further his scheme. In total, Ee
conducted 60 fraudulent CFD trades and made profits of more
than S$24,000 at the expense of City Index.
On 19 May 2021, Ee was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment
and a fine of S$30,000 on 20 counts of employing a scheme to
defraud under Section 201(a) punishable under Section 204 of
the Securities & Futures Act (SFA) and one count of unauthorised
trading under Section 201(b) punishable under Section 204 of
the SFA. 42 similar charges were taken into consideration for the
purpose of sentencing. Ee has made full restitution to City Index.

在这件欺诈案里，虽然直接诉讼者不是IG, 但IG应该是首先发现并揭露给MAS并和SGX合作进行调查的。因为真正的交易SGX是看不见的，只有IG自己能看见，交易大多只发生在了CFD里，没有发生在exchange里。这件案件的涉案人是IG的customer, 他同时在SGX的cash market里面制造虚假买卖挂单，之后在CFD账户里完成对自己的虚假挂单的交易后，再把SGX上面的虚假单撤销，所以IG一开始不可能知道SGX上的虚假挂单就是customer自己的，SGX也不知道这些虚假单会和IG的某一个CFD交易有关联。IG在发现问题后只能表示怀疑并请求和SGX一起合作来观察这些账户到底有没有关联。IG想发现某些账户有没有问题其实很容易发现，只是看他们日常检查严不严格而已。

CFD这种特殊的一纸协议和customer对赌，毫无监管约束的特性，让这个染缸很黑。我只能说上报纸的case都不算case。因为外部人员欺诈再怎么诈也不可能诈太多的钱。 CFD的收入来源有三种，1）说好听点hedging (难听点就是trade against customer) 2) over night finance charge 3) commission. 其中第一种和第二种收入要远远远远大于第三种。。。

新加坡也不例外，案例还透露了详细的手段。。。

好像你说的，IG真的不在乎这点钱，SGX应该是通过某个帐户频繁挂单撤单发现，然后开始调查的。但是水至清则无鱼。SGX冷门股交易量少也拜这所赐吧。

通过交易系统挂的单，怎么就成了假单？我就是想挂个和现价差距较大的单子等着不行？不能说没成交的单子都是假单吧？

比如包马来西亚私家车去马来西亚，两厢情愿也是犯法。陆交局说犯法就是犯法。

通过交易系统挂的单，进而在CFD交易中获利，再撤单，已经被MAS指定为非法。

前者，法律保护的是垄断德士公司的利益。
后者，法律保护的是CFD交易商的利益。

印象中很久以前有案例，就是两个人在下边轮流下大的托单，快成交的时候撤单，再挂大的托单。结果股价往上走了。这两个人被判操纵股价。严格说，对于这种操纵，也有股价往下走的情况。但是，怎么判，以法官的看法为准。

文中的情况，如果ig asia赚了钱，而这个人亏了，就没有这个官司了。其实这应该是更常见的情况，毕竟这个人是需要付两边的手续费，而且就我的了解，不少呢。

有点冒冷汗，
去年我也想到这个策略，和这个被抓的操盘手法一模一样，但我需要评估一下法律风险，就没去做
哎，都是缺钱闹的
后来我想要是我做了，不仅赚的要还回去，还要坐牢，太可怕了
不过，其实操盘手法可以更隐秘一些，当然这种侥幸都是有风险的，最好就是别操控价格，吃不了兜着走

在替客户买入前后，同时操作cfd，算违法吗？我印象中cfd的手续费不便宜，和股票一样。