Improving Market Abuse Surveillance in CFD Providers: Key Insights from FCA’s Market Watch 73
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently conducted a peer review of firms offering Contracts for Difference (CFDs) and spread bets to enhance market abuse surveillance arrangements and uplift standards. The review gathered data from 9 carefully selected firms and yielded positive results, with all firms having effective surveillance to detect insider dealing. However, there were weaknesses observed in considering market abuse risks in non-equity asset classes and market manipulation. The FCA’s Market Watch 73 report highlights areas that require improvement despite the positive findings. One of the key takeaways from the report is that firms must have a comprehensive understanding of all relevant market abuse risks to effectively detect and report suspicious orders and transactions. A general assessment of market abuse policies and procedures is not enough. The FCA stresses the importance of considering all asset classes and execution methods to identify applicable risks. The risk of manipulation can vary within and between asset classes, which is why firms that consider their entire business are more effective at detecting market abuse. The FCA also highlights the need for effective surveillance systems for all asset classes, including non-equities, to address manipulation risks. Firms with short lookback periods may miss suspicious trading, and those reviewing all trading activity prior to an event are more effective. Market manipulation surveillance and surveillance in non-equity asset classes should also be considered. Another important aspect the report covers is the need for a balance when sharing surveillance matters with front office staff. While STOR submissions should only be shared on a need-to-know basis, Compliance should challenge and educate front office staff when necessary. Front office staff should refuse to accept orders if they suspect market abuse and relevant policies should be clear and enforced. The decision to restrict or exit clients typically rests with Compliance or an independent committee, but firms should have a formalised structure with appropriate flexibility to take consistent, appropriate, and prompt action. In conclusion, the FCA’s Market Watch 73 report highlights the need for CFD providers to improve their market abuse surveillance arrangements and raise standards. Firms must have a comprehensive understanding of all relevant market abuse risks, effective surveillance systems for all asset classes, and a balanced approach when sharing surveillance matters with front office staff. By taking these steps, firms can mitigate the risk of market abuse-related financial crime and promote consistency in a rapidly changing industry. How can Complyport Tech assist Complyport Tech’s Trade Surveillance solution is a comprehensive post-transaction analysis solution that helps firms detect suspicious trading activity such as market manipulation and insider dealing in various financial markets. The solution is designed to help you comply with regulatory requirements such as MiFID, MiFIR/MiFID II, MAD/MAR, ESMA Guidelines in Europe, and Dodd Frank, Volcker Rule, and MAD in North America. With our exceptional features, you have complete control over the alerts you receive. Here are some of our main features: Exception-Based Testing: Set your own benchmarks and parameters. Any transaction that doesn’t meet your criteria will generate an alert that you can examine. Customisable Parameters: Customise settings and test parameters to give you complete control over the alerts you receive. Global Multi-Venue Analysis: Review market data that is collected from over 250 global sources by our partner Refinitiv. Large Volume Data Handling: Process extremely large volumes of data (millions of trades) on a daily basis. Immediate Access to Data: Compile reports at any time and for any date range, allowing you access to all of your data at the click of a button. Workflow Management: Gain full control when generating audit trails, running management reports, and setting up a custom workflow. Visual and Statistical Data: Generate customisable charts and graphs to visually represent your data or export tables as PDFs or Excel files. Regulatory Updates and Changes: The service amends itself to reflect any regulatory updates and/or changes throughout the duration of the engagement. In addition to these features, we also offer news feeds, market data, production and test systems, upgrades and enhancements, additional alerts and functionality, hosting, one source feed, support and training, reporting module, and data archive. Contact our team to learn more about how our Trade Surveillance service can benefit your firm.
Market Abuse: A Reminder for Regulated Firms
What is Market Abuse? The EU Market Abuse Regulation states market abuse is “a concept that encompasses unlawful behaviour in the financial markets”. The practice involves individuals and firms using market-sensitive information and using the information to manipulate or gain an unfair advantage over the market. It is problematic because it damages investor confidence and the integrity of financial markets. Market abuse comprises of insider dealing, unlawful disclosure of inside information, and market manipulation. The Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) (2014) was introduced to combat insider dealing and market manipulation in the EU and later, UK MAR (2020) was onshored after the Brexit transition period. Collectively, the United Kingdom and the United States became more stringent with market abuse regulations and enforcement. In the UK, at the end of 2021, the maximum custodial sentence for individuals found guilty of insider dealing and market manipulation increased from 7 to 10 years. Likewise, between August and December 2022, the FCA ramped up its enforcement efforts by handing out nearly £18 million in fines, which ranged from individuals, listed companies, and ex-employees. On the 21st of July 2022, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission brought forth the first insider trading case involving cryptocurrency, which has undoubtedly set the stage for what is to come regarding the enforcement towards cryptocurrency. Market Abuse Regulation The FCA has not introduced any new market abuse regulations since UK MAR. However, firms should take note of the FCA’s guidance and learn from the failures of their competitors to improve standards and accountability in the financial market. FCA’s Market Watch 69 and 71 identified weaknesses in firms’ market abuse frameworks, including ineffective market abuse risk assessments, insufficient order and trade surveillance, vague policies and procedures, and inadequate insider lists. For example, Citigroup Global Markets Limited was fined £12,553,800 by the FCA for failures in the detection of market abuse. The lack of trade surveillance requirement implementation led to the inability to effectively monitor trading activities for some types of insider dealing and market manipulation. Additionally, Sigma Broking Limited was fined £531,000 by the FCA last year, following market abuse reporting failures. As a result of inadequate governance and oversight by the company’s board of directors, it was discovered that the company, between December 2014 and August 2016, did not report or failed to correctly report 56,000 contracts for difference (CFD), and failed to detect 97 suspicious transactions or orders that should have been reported to the FCA To address these weaknesses, firms should periodically undertake high-level market abuse risk assessments, monitor orders and trades effectively, maintain well-documented policies and procedures, and ensure insider lists contain required personal information beyond names. Nonetheless, on 01 February 2023, HM Treasury released a consultation focusing on bringing the future UK regulations for cryptoassets within the framework of traditional financial services. Some of the proposals include making civil market abuses offences similar to those under MAR and requiring firms to disclose inside information and maintain insider lists. The consultation acknowledges the difficulties and challenges of effectively policing the conduct, nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction to stop some of the abusive practices that encompass the cryptoasset realm. What does this mean for regulated firms? Policies, procedures, systems, including market risk assessments should be appropriate and proportionate to the size, scale and nature of the business activity; Trade surveillance should cover the full range of trading activities taken and asset classes traded; Gap analysis should be conducted on the adequacy of automated trade surveillance systems as well as manual processes in identifying market abuse. Where weaknesses are found, firms need to consider how to remediate them. Effective and comprehensive training should be given to staff involved in the monitoring, detection and identification of orders on at least an annual basis. Ultimately, the FCA highlighting key themes regarding market conduct and the UK government enhancing the scope of the market abuse regulations coincides with the FCA’s 2022 – 2025 Strategy, with one key area of focus being “delivering assertive action on Market Abuse”. It is unsure whether this more assertive trend by the FCA will continue into 2023, however, if 2022 is anything to go by, there is no doubt the FCA will be busy with enforcement in 2023. For this reason, firms executing trades in financial instruments such as Banks, Investment firms and broker-dealers should ensure the correct measures are in place to avoid such fines. How canComplyport Tech assist Complyport Tech is a leading award-winning global regulatory technology provider, highly regarded for its proprietary reporting technology and exceptional client-centric after-sales support. Our Trade Surveillance is a comprehensive post-transaction analysis solution to detect suspicious trading activity such as market manipulation and insider dealing in equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, CFDs and other derivatives. Complyport Tech’s Trade Surveillance solution is designed to help firms to detect possible market abuse and comply with the regulatory requirements of MiFID, MiFIR/MiFID II, MAD/MAR and ESMA Guidelines in Europe, as well as Dodd Frank, Volcker Rule and MAD in North America. Contact our team of experts to find out how you can benefit from our innovative and comprehensive regulatory reporting solutions.
Authorities continue imposing sanctions on Market Abuse
Following ESMA’s annual market abuse report for 2019 which shows that National Competent Authorities (NCAs) and other authorities imposed a total of €88 million related to 339 administrative and criminal actions under the Marker Abuse Regulation (MAR), the Cyprus Securities & Exchange Commission (CySEC) has recently imposed its first ever administrative fine of €40.000 to a CFD/Forex Cyprus Investment Firm (CIF) in relation to MAR. According to CySEC, the said CIF did not maintain effective arrangements and procedures to detect and report suspicious orders and transactions, thus failing to comply with Article 16(2) of MAR. There is no doubt that there has been a significant increase in the number of penalties and enforcements in recent years across the global financial markets in the areas of market abuse. With a growing pressure to detect market abuse, ensuring compliance with MAR continues to be a pressing issue for many firms. It is imperative that firms carry out an in-depth risk assessment of their trading activities to understand and identify when and where they are most at risk of being used to carry out abusive market behaviour, whether this is market manipulation or insider dealing. With a proper understanding and identification of their risk, firms must ensure to implement appropriate trade surveillance systems to monitor and identify any suspicious trading behaviour to reduce the risk of market manipulation and fraud and protect their reputation. The new Market Abuse Regulation came into effect in July 2016. In its new iteration, MAR has significantly extended its scope capturing financial instruments traded on all types of European trading venues and financial products (such as OTC (e.g. CFDs) and on-exchange derivatives) whose price or value is referenced to said financial instruments. Moreover, ‘inside information’ also includes commodities and emission allowances. Recent EU cases have shown that CFD brokers are particularly vulnerable to being used in illegal ‘insider dealing’ activities. For example, in 2018, an online broker in the UK was fined over £1m for failings in its post-trade systems and controls for identifying and reporting suspicious transactions. More specifically, the broker failed to detect two highly profitable CFD trades that potentially used inside information. Our affiliated compliance advisory firm, MAP S.Platis, has published last year an interesting article in relation to Market Abuse and CFD Brokers which can be accessed here https://www.mapsplatis.com/news/ market-abuse-and-cfd-brokers-are-you-doing-enough/. Further to the above, interestingly, EU authorities have recently been contemplating of bringing spot FX contracts into the scope of MAR, albeit, ESMA has, for the time being, decided to postpone the decision on whether to extend the scope of MAR to spot FX contracts. This is an area also worth monitoring especially by CFD/Forex firms. More information about MAR and spot FX contracts can be found in a recent article issued by our analysts https://mapfintech.com/eu-spot-fx-contracts-market-abuse-regulation/. How can MAP FinTech assist you? MAP FinTech’s Trade Surveillance solution provides firms with the tools to monitor all trades and orders to identify potentially suspicious activity and behaviour. It is a comprehensive post-transaction analysis solution to detect suspicious trading activity such as market manipulation and insider dealing in equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, CFDs and other derivatives. The solution is designed to help firms comply with the regulatory requirements of MiFID, MiFIR/MiFID II, MAD/MAR and ESMA Guidelines in Europe, and Dodd Frank, Volcker Rule and MAD in North America. Our services include the technology and the consulting from our experts to provide your firm with a holistic solution for developing and executing a comprehensive and truly risk-based market abuse surveillance programme covering both market manipulation and insider dealing, with superior record-keeping capabilities. For questions or to discuss how MAP FinTech can help your firm strengthen its trade surveillance, increase efficiencies through technology and ensure your regulatory obligations are met, contact our team of experts.
How Can We Maximise Regulatory Technology & Avoid Its Potential Pitfalls? What recent results from the European Banking Authority and ESMA reports show
The European Banking Authority (EBA) has recently published an analysis looking into the RegTech landscape in the EU. The report assesses the many benefits, challenges and risks of the use of RegTech in the EU and lays out the steps to be taken to support the sound adoption and scale-up of solutions in this sector. The study also proposes actions designed to enhance the knowledge and skills of the competent authorities (CAs). ESMA has also published a report on Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities of the Financial sector dedicating a part on RegTech and SupTech and the change for Markets and authorities. This report highlights that market participants are increasingly using new automated tools in a variety of areas, while potential applications of new tools for regulators include greater surveillance capacity and improved data collection and management. When technology is used for compliance, it is called Regulatory Technology or ‘RegTech’. Regtech is defined as any range of applications of technology‐enabled innovation for regulatory, compliance and reporting requirements implemented by a regulated institution – with or without the assistance of RegTech provider. RegTech solutions in Financial Institutions (FIs) and Investment Firms (FI’s) are currently evident in: Anti-Money-Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) – for example, providing solutions for sanction screening or remote onboarding of customers. Fraud prevention – through automated behaviour and transaction monitoring. Prudential reporting – supporting institutions in their regulatory submissions. ICT security – providing detection mechanisms for an institution’s operations security. Creditworthiness assessments – providing new capabilities for assessing the creditworthiness of clients. Regulatory Reporting – supporting institutions in their trade reporting. Risk Management Benefits According to financial organisations using RegTech solutions, their key benefits are improved risk management, better monitoring and sample capabilities, and a reduction in human error. At the same time, RegTech providers place heavy emphasis on their ability to increase efficiency and effectiveness and quell the impact of ongoing regulatory change. Some of the increasing disparities in perspective between financial institutions (FIs) and RegTech providers suggest that further research of the benefits afforded by RegTech solutions is required. ESMA also believes that the move towards a more data-driven and pro-active approach will enhance monitoring of the financial sector and help ensure better outcomes for market participants and consumers. The continual push for efficiencies and cost savings, particularly for back-end and legacy systems as well as for labour-intensive processes will increase the use of RegTech in the foreseeable future. Risks EBA highlighted that when not implemented correctly, RegTech solutions may also generate risks for FIs that would need to be identified, monitored and managed. These risks may relate to, for example, compliance, concentration, business continuity, ICT and security, reputational issues, internal governance, conduct and consumer protection, and/or technology. RegTech may also create new risks for CAs supervising FIs. These include potential difficulties in assessing the effectiveness and reliability of the technological solutions used by FIs, and a potential lack of skills and tools needed to supervise the use of technology enabled RegTech solutions and, say, audit the underlying algorithms. ESMA focused on the risks and challenges for regulators and market participants in the areas of data collection and management, digital transition and failure on the part of market participants to adapt to the new digitalised infrastructure and the need from regulators to invest in the technological tools and human skills that will allow them to effectively analyse the results, operational risks and the risks from strategic incentives such as developing expertise in RegTech. Challenges The EBA report suggests that the majority of challenges to RegTech market development involve internal factors within the FIs and providers. Likewise, ESMA considers most of those challenges to apply for FIs. However, a lack of common regulatory standards across the EU could also constitute a barrier to the wider market adoption of RegTech solutions. The main challenges from the FI perspective are summarısed as follows: Data-related challenges and cybersecurity threats: FIs often indicate data quality, data privacy and protection, lack of data integration, data availability, and lack of data standardisation and harmonisation as issues. Interoperability and integration with the existing legacy systems: FI legacy systems and processes have too many silos, making RegTech adoption difficult, and this is further compounded by doubts about the ICT capacity of FIs to support FinTech, RegTech, and InsurTech solutions. Changes to regulation: changes with national or international regulations and other regulatory challenges can be another key barrier to RegTech adoption. Costs and procurement process: RegTech solutions seen as part of compliance and usually treated as a back‐office function may be at risk of underinvestment. Lack of necessary skills and training: when working with either in‐house or external RegTech solutions, FIs need specialists, e.g. data scientists and engineers, to be able, where relevant, to scout, assess, operate, and maintain updated RegTech solutions. Perceived immaturity of RegTech providers’ solutions: FIs that see RegTech as a potential competitive advantage often cite the lack of available and mature RegTech solutions as a challenge. Challenges from the RegTech provider perspective include: Lack of technological capabilities – the lack of some clients API capabilities and lack of standardisation are perceived as obstacles for technical integration. Security, data privacy and protection issues – privacy regulation may be one of the key constrains for FIs from sharing datasets with RegTech providers. Changes of national and international regulation – complex and continuously evolving regulatory landscape is perceived as a challenge, in particular on prudential reporting, fraud prevention and AML/CFT. Cost of user acquisition – a challenge, especially for recently established and smaller RegTech providers. Lack of FI understanding of RegTech solutions –it appears to RegTech providers that FIs may not be fully aware of all advantages that RegTech solutions may bring. Lack of harmonised legal and regulatory requirements – RegTech providers perceive the lack of harmonisation of regulatory requirements across the EU and the lack of regulatory data standards to be obstacles for wider market adoption of RegTech solutions. Clarity of regulatory/supervisory guidance – RegTech providers consider the lack of regulatory/supervisory
Will the EU bring spot FX contracts into the scope of the Market Abuse Regulation?
Foreign exchange (“FX”) trading activities constitutes one of the largest markets in the world, worth billions of euros every day. However, the FX market remains the least regulated and opaque of all financial markets, in which FX rates that influence the value of billions of Euros of assets and investments are allowed to be set by a few firms and individuals. In September 2013, the European Commission (the “Commission”) started investigating several banks operating in the foreign exchange market for breaches of EU anti-trust rules, in particular Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement that prohibits cartels and other restrictive business practices. In May 2019, in two settlement decisions, the Commission fined five banks more than Euro 1 billion for participating in spot FX trading cartel for 11 currencies. The Commission’s investigation revealed that some individual traders in charge of FX trading of these currencies on behalf of the relevant banks exchanged sensitive information and trading plans, and occasionally coordinated their trading strategies through various online professional chatrooms. The infringements occurred between December 2007 and January 2013. The Commissioner in charge of competition policy, Margrethe Vestager, said that “these cartel decisions send a clear message that the Commission will not tolerate collusive behaviour in any sector of the financial markets. The behaviour of these banks undermined the integrity of the sector at the expense of the European economy and consumers”. The Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), which applied from 3 July 2016, contains a review clause requiring the Commission to present a report to the European Parliament and the Council to assess various provisions of MAR. The scope of application of MAR as defined by its Article 2 does not include spot FX contracts. Given the size of the spot FX market and the issues being encountered, the Commission mandated ESMA to consider whether there is a need for that market to be covered by the market abuse regime, whether the national competent authorities have the necessary regulatory tools to effectively and efficiently supervise and sanction market abuse on spot FX markets and whether extending the scope of MAR to these markets would prove to be the most appropriate way of remedying supervisory gaps, if any exist. On 23 September 2020, following a public consultation, ESMA published its final recommendations in its MAR Review report. ESMA took several factors into consideration like the possible regulatory gap due to the absence of regulatory coverage in the EU, the structural changes needed, particularly the transparency and conduct requirements and the reporting obligation under MiFID II/MiFIR. Key concepts of MAR would also need to be adjusted, for example the definition of the ‘issuer’ for spot FX contracts. Additionally, special care would need to be given on the coordination required between the EU and other jurisdictions concerning the exchange of information. ESMA settled on its final view, taking into account the size of the spot FX market together with its global nature and peculiarities and the number of concepts that would need to be revised in the context of spot FX markets, as well as the required revision of MiFID II and MiFIR. A sound cost-benefit analysis was deemed appropriate before deciding on a future EU regulatory framework due to the structural changes that it would imply. ESMA specifically considered the regulatory gap between MAR and the FX Global Code of Conduct (the “FX Global Code”), the global principles of good practice standards in the foreign exchange markets developed in 2015 between central banks and market participants. The FX Global Code is currently being reviewed to ensure that its guidance remains appropriate and is contributing to an effectively functioning market. The review is due to be completed by mid-2021. ESMA has, for the time being, decided to postpone the decision on whether to extend the scope of MAR to spot FX contracts. ESMA concluded that further analysis should be undertaken on the suitability of setting-up an EU regulatory regime on market abuse for spot FX contracts, taking into account the FX Global Code currently under revision and involving the central banks, who contributed extensively to the FX Global Code. ESMA also noted, that considering the global nature of this market, global coordination with the other main jurisdictions in developing such regulatory framework would also be required.
Complyport Tech presents extensive opportunities for firms in the future, Thomson Reuters survey shows
Can corporate governance and the culture of financial services firms keep up with the pace of growth of regulatory technology? During the past several years, regulators have invested heavily in technology to protect and monitor regulatory reporting data quality. The main challenges for 2021 will focus on new regulations, preparing for those with effective dates this year and those that are going through the legislation, proposal and comment processes. This leaves financial services firms with no option but to address automated reporting as a way of validating all data submitted to regulators, detecting and correcting data issues as they arise, and setting up an overall data governance framework across different regulatory reporting requirements. Thus, Regulatory Technology (RegTech) is crucial for operational management and strategic decision-making for both the risk and compliance functions as it is designed to help firms understand and meet legal requirements more effectively and efficiently. According to Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence’s 2020 annual survey report “RegTech and the role of compliance in 2021”, despite firms facing several budget challenges during the pandemic, the adoption and implementation of regulatory technology has taken a huge step forward with 70% of the surveyed firms reporting that COVID-19 increased their reliance on technological solutions. The study, which shares the experiences of more than 400 compliance and risk practitioners, found that this sector’s growth is expected to accelerate in the coming months and years. Firms and their customers are realising the great value of adopting a wide variety of Fintech solutions. The survey also shows that firms must be careful to deploy solutions on solid foundations. This means getting corporate governance right. A quarter of respondents said that corporate boards and the risk and compliance functions need to be more involved in finding and adopting Fintech solutions for the firm, highlighting the absence of appropriate skill sets as one reason for this lack of involvement. Moreover, RegTech applications continue to provide popular, embedded solutions for firms in areas such as compliance monitoring, financial crime, AML/CTF, sanctions and regulatory reporting. Budgets are predicted to increase with a mix of in-house and external solutions as the option most frequently selected by respondents. Interestingly, just 16% of firms reported they had implemented RegTech solutions, with a further 34% stating that RegTech solutions were affecting the management of compliance. Notably, the report identifies a shift from build to buy; firms that employ inhouse solutions fell to 6% in 2020 from 17% in 2019, while 12% reported that all of their RegTech solutions were developed externally. Why choose Complyport Tech to be your regulatory technology partner? Complyport Tech is a leading and award-winning regulatory technology provider for the financial services industry, specialising in reporting solutions arising from the requirements of a number of complex and challenging international regulations such as EMIR, MiFID II/MiFIR, SFTR, FATCA, DAC6 and CRS. Complyport Tech also provides innovative and comprehensive solutions for Best Execution Monitoring, RTS 27/28 Reporting, AML Transaction Monitoring and Screening, Trade Surveillance (Market Abuse), and eKYC (Screening, eIDV, Document Authentication). Industry Pioneers Complyport Tech was one of the first providers in Europe to report under the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) with 1.5 billion+ transactions successfully submitted since February 2014. The company currently supports over 170 B2B global clients, having been recognised for the Best RegTech Reporting Solution for 2019 by Finance Magnates London and named as one of the 100 most innovative RegTech companies in the world for 2020 and 2021 by RegTech Analyst. LSE-listed brokers, including some of the biggest CFD brokers in the world, currently use Complyport Tech’s innovative solutions. RegTech Experts Complyport Tech is not just a technology company that develops software to help clients report. At the core of its offerings lies compliance. Complyport Tech provides quality assurance that the reporting obligations are correctly covered in terms of data quality. If the need arises, the firm can also directly support businesses before any national competent authority without needing any external third-party advisory or assistance. Complyport Tech can directly and uninterruptedly report to a number of EU national competent authorities. Complyport Tech’s products have been repeatedly tested and passed several rigorous reviews by EU regulatory authorities, providing full transparency for both clients and EU national competent authorities. Moreover, the company offers financial institutions the unique facility to comply with a firm’s reporting obligations before the regulatory authorities, carry out audit trails, and conduct their own reconciliations. Complyport Tech has managed to successfully and innovatively combine the compliance and technology functions with both of its teams working in close unison. This allows the company to be flexible, efficient and effective in supporting the many new, demanding and dynamic requirements of the global RegTech world.. The team’s combined expertise underpins the company’s success in providing targeted solutions to its clients and addressing their reporting needs across a diverse regulatory landscape. One-Stop RegTech Provider Complyport Tech’s solutions are all delivered under the Polaris Platform, the company’s single and powerful RegTech tool. Besides transaction reporting, the Polaris platform combines, under a single unit interface, unique solutions such as Market Abuse Surveillance, AML Transaction Monitoring, Best Execution Monitoring, RTS reports and CRS/FATCA reporting, among others. This allows Complyport Tech to package its offerings to its clients by reducing direct and indirect costs, maintain a single point of contact for support and access to the system, and avoid the need of multiple integrations with various vendors, thus saving clients both time and resources. Impeccable Support Services Complyport Tech’s dedicated and experienced support team specialises in regulatory reporting, providing continuous support on what is needed to master transaction reporting requirements. This starts from the onboarding phase and covers the whole process up until the initiation of the live reporting, the handover of the platform to the client, and ongoing day-to-day support. Unparalleled Compliance Expertise Complyport Tech is a member of MAP S.Platis Group, a leading financial services consultancy group in the region that maintains one of the largest and most experienced teams of financial services compliance experts in the EU. This ensures that