CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Market abuse

circumstances where financial market investors have been unreasonably disadvantaged by insider dealing or market manipulation

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionOct 18, 2024
Entity authorityQ2822122 ↗
Source-derived summary

In economics and finance, market abuse may arise in circumstances in which investors in a financial market have been unreasonably disadvantaged, directly or indirectly, by others who:

have used information which is not publicly available (insider dealing)

have distorted the price-setting mechanism of financial instruments

have disseminated false or misleading information (market manipulation)

Market abuse is split into two different aspects (under EU definitions):

Insider dealing: where a person who has information not available to other investors (for example, a director with knowledge of a takeover bid) makes use of that information for personal gain

Market manipulation: where a person knowingly gives out false or misleading information (for instance, about a company's financial circumstances) in order to influence the price of a share for personal gain

In 2013/2014, the EU updated its legislation on market abuse, and harmonised criminal sanctions. In the 2015 Danish European Union opt-out referendum, the Danish population rejected adoption of the 2014 market abuse directive (2014/57/EU) and much other legislation.

In the UK, the market abuse directive (MAD) was implemented in 2003 to reduce market abuse. It applied to any financial instrument admitted to trading on a regulated market or in respect of which a request for admission to trading had been made. MAD was subsequently replaced by the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) in 2016.

See also

Anti-competitive practices

Insider trading

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

EU law

ISO 37001 Anti-bribery management systems

Group of States Against Corruption

International Anti-Corruption Academy

United Nations Convention against Corruption

OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

References

Further reading

Avgouleas, Emilios E (2005). The mechanics and regulation of market abuse: a legal and economic analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019924452-2.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Market abuse” as circumstances where financial market investors have been unreasonably disadvantaged by insider dealing or market manipulation. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Market, abuse and circumstances.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2013, 2014, 2015, 2003—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Market, abuse and circumstances providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Market abuse”, the useful work is to connect “circumstances where financial market investors have been unreasonably disadvantaged by insider dealing or market manipulation” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 18, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q2822122. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2003.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Market abuse”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Market abuse primary sources, Market abuse archive and Market research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Market abuse”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Market abuse” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.