The summary addresses a portion of the Commission's case involving Mr. Katz, who pleaded guilty to charges related to foreign currency manipulation. It highlights that evidence regarding Mr. Tezel's involvement is lacking; specifically, Tezel is not shown to have participated in any relevant discussions or chatrooms related to the case, which spans from 2 October 2007 to 18 October 2012, before Tezel joined the fifth respondent company. The Commission is criticized for not providing sufficient evidence in their referral affidavit to establish a connection between the fifth respondent and allegations against Katz, particularly regarding the supposed exploitation of Katz's knowledge of currency manipulation. Overall, the text indicates that there is insufficient ground to prove that the fifth respondent was a participant in the alleged manipulation scheme as presented by the Commission.
summarise:
exposure at the upcoming FIX. Aiyer “copied and pasted” a portion of a communication
between Madras and Tezel from another chatroom.’
[97] What precisely is meant by ‘copied and pasted’ is not made clear nor is there
any suggestion that Mr Tezel participated in a chatroom or any similar discussion with
other traders. But the Commission’s case relating to Katz concerns the period of 2
October 2007 to 18 October 2012; that is before he joined fifth respondent and that no
participation on the part of Mr Tezel, whether active of passive, is shown in respect of
any of the chatrooms. This justifies the conclusion that no case was made out
sufficient to find that fifth respondent was a participant in the overall SOC as pleaded
by the Commission.
[98] At this stage it is important to note that Mr Katz pleaded guilty to charges
brought by the US Department of Justice arising from a global investigation into the
manipulation of foreign exchange prices at major banks. In his case it appears that
the conspiracy to fix prices in currencies ranged from countries in Central, Eastern
Europe, the Middle East and Africa, including Southern Africa.
[99] Given that the Commission would have had access to the case brought against
Katz, one would have expected that it possessed evidence about Katz and his role. It
could reasonably have been expected that, were their evidence to the effect that fifth
respondent exploited Katz’s knowledge of manipulation of the Rand, this would have
been produced in the referral affidavit. There was simply no such mention. The
basis of the referral affidavit provides no case of personal jurisdiction having been
1 answer