<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>FRONT-RUNNING</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1990</link>
    <description>The primary issue is whether the FUTP Regulations of 2003, which prohibit front-running by intermediaries, extend to persons who are traders. The Tribunal found telephonic transcripts and trade timings established prior transmission of client order details and trading ahead behaviour, but noted the 2003 regulatory scheme limits the statutory prohibition to intermediaries, creating a regulatory gap for traders and evidentiary enforcement constraints such as lack of phone-tapping powers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:01:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:01:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=302468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>FRONT-RUNNING</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1990</link>
      <description>The primary issue is whether the FUTP Regulations of 2003, which prohibit front-running by intermediaries, extend to persons who are traders. The Tribunal found telephonic transcripts and trade timings established prior transmission of client order details and trading ahead behaviour, but noted the 2003 regulatory scheme limits the statutory prohibition to intermediaries, creating a regulatory gap for traders and evidentiary enforcement constraints such as lack of phone-tapping powers.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Other Topics</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:01:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=1990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>