CBOT issued a pair of notices in a single disciplinary action (notices here and here) for failure to have an underlying physical trade. The notice made clear that there were offsetting transactions styled as an EFRP to allow positions to move between accounts without performing a back office transfer. This is a recurring and common theme in exchange disciplinary notices this year - a prty wanting to move trades between positions without having anyone (possibly anyone within their organization) notice.
The interesting point here is that one party (the first notice above) is cited for executing "the EFRPs for the purpose of rebalancing positions held by various (company) funds" They got find $40K.
The other company, in the same notice sequence, was cited for executing "these transactions simultaneously and without incurring material market risk." They got fined $55K.
This may be overreading the case but it would appear that the first company wanted to move positions between accounts and asked someone at the second company to help. That person appears to have agreed. The exchange fined the helper more than the the company wanting the improper act. The second fim is a major organization with significant oversight and training. It is interesting that that firm got fined more than 35% more than the company that was likely to have been the instigator of the scheme.
This leads DCM to believe that exchanges are starting to crack down with penalties based at least partially in whether yoou should have known better than to facilitate the improper action. This woould be an implicit warning that you not only no have excuse to go along to "help" someone by subverting exchange rules but that you will get an even bigger penalty because you should have said no.