Market abuse is a strong cluster because the same control evidence matters across markets: surveillance scenarios, restricted lists, wall-crossing records, inside information decisions, personal account dealing and communications monitoring.
Core Articles
- Market Abuse Enforcement: Global Regulator Comparison — Core comparison
- FCA vs SEC Enforcement: 5 Differences That Actually Matter — UK-US regulator comparison
- FCA Fines March 2026: Market Disclosure and Controls — Recent market disclosure case study
- FCA Fines January 2026: Individual Accountability Guide — Individual market-abuse signal
Evidence Focus
- Insider dealing, unlawful disclosure, manipulation and issuer disclosure controls.
- Trade and communications surveillance, escalation and alert closure quality.
- Information barriers, wall-crossing logs and personal account dealing exceptions.
- Cross-border comparison across FCA, SEC, AMF, SEBI, SFC and SESC enforcement.
Board Questions
- Do surveillance models reflect current products, venues, messaging channels and trading behaviour?
- Which restricted-list, watch-list or wall-crossing exceptions reached senior committees?
- Can issuer disclosure decisions be reconstructed from evidence rather than recollection?
- Where do personal account dealing and outside-business-interest controls show repeat exceptions?
Search, Data and Advisory Paths
- Search market abuse — Find market-abuse and insider-trading enforcement records.
- SEC hub — Compare US securities enforcement signals.
- FCA hub — Read UK market-abuse actions in context.
- Create market-abuse pack — Convert cases into surveillance and information-barrier questions.
- Search enforcement records — Move from the cluster into the database.