UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-000134 UT-2022-000135 UT-2022-000137 - [2025] UKUT 00214 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-000134 UT-2022-000135 UT-2022-000137 - [2025] UKUT 00214 (TCC)

Fecha: 31-Ene-2025

Conclusions

Conclusions

667.

All three Traders feature in different combinations in the Multi Trader Instances, as shown by the table of the orders placed in the ten Specified Instances. They each placed both Small and Large Orders, and this is relevant when assessing whether individually they were pursuing an abusive strategy (as we recognise that the placing of Small Orders with no knowledge of the Large Order(s) being placed by another Trader in that Instance would not of itself mean that the Trader placing the Small Order was engaged in an abusive strategy).

668.

We do, however, consider that the coincidences in timing in the activity in the Multi Trader Instances, including but not limited to those described in detail above, strongly supports a conclusion that the Traders were collaborating. If that is the case, then the placing of concurrent Large Orders by the Traders is relevant both to whether the Multiple Large Orders placed by Mr Sheth were poor practice or a deliberate intent to put more pressure on the order book; and also to the submissions as to whether the Large Orders were “large”, and this shows that it is not a standalone question for each individual Large Order but the total volume of the concurrent Large Orders by reference to the market at that time.

669.

When assessing collaboration, we consider that the strongest submissions and evidence in favour of the Traders are not ones based on the specific activity, but instead:

(1)

If the Traders were collaborating to commit an abusive scheme, and had planned how to achieve this, we would expect that they would have come up with an explanation for their activity, yet they have set out two different explanations.

(2)

The abusive scheme alleged by the Authority involves three Traders and they have managed to avoid committing any evidence of this scheme to any form of electronic communications, whether before, during or after the Relevant Period. This is in circumstances where, whilst the scheme could be conducted in real time in person, Mr Lopez was on holiday at the time of Compliance’s initial investigation when Mr Urra and Mr Sheth were both interviewed by Compliance.