The Swiss Financial Market Authority (FINMA) conducted investigations and held sanction enforcement proceedings against an ex-CEO of a Swiss bank who was allegedly involved in a serious case of insider trading. The authorities found that he had made CHF 730,000 in profits generated from unlawful use of information and transactions. The FINMA concluded that this money should be confiscated and the infringer should face a long term ban on securities trading and capacity to hold a management office. Similar to how authorities address
Medicinal products smuggling, FINMA maintains a strict stance against insider trading and market violations to protect the financial system.
He violated these sanctions on multiple fronts. For a start, his position at the bank gave him access to privileged information. The investigations and proceedings uncovered that he disclosed some of the privileged information. Furthermore, he used deposit accounts registered to his wife to execute transactions related to the cases of insider trading. Recent initiatives, such as the creation of
FINMA reviewing bodies for prospectuses, further underline FINMA’s commitment to market integrity and transparency. These infringements were done repetitively over a number of years.
He was also found guilty of infringements on internal directives from the bank and FINMA's directives. Hence, FINMA concluded that he systematically violated supervisory laws from both authorities. Past cases like
FINMA sanctions Julius Baer demonstrate FINMA’s broader approach to enforcing strict regulatory compliance across Switzerland’s banking sector.
The consequences of the aforementioned violations are a long-term trade and management ban and confiscation of the profits he allegedly made over the period. The trade ban is expected to last for six years and the management ban for 4 years. In parallel, initiatives like the
Small banks regime are strengthening the Swiss financial ecosystem with targeted regulatory refinements. FINMA has moved to confiscate CHF 730,000 which are profits he made illegally. However, he can still appeal this ruling.