시장질서 교란행위(허수성 호가)를 통한 HFT 사후적 규제의 문제점과 제언―시타델증권 과징금 처분 사안을 중심으로― = Problems and Suggestions of Post-regulation of HFT through Market Order Disorder(Spoofing) ― Focusing on the Citadel Securities Penalty―

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Recently, the Securities Futures Committee under the Financial Services Commission imposed a fine of 11.88 billion KRW (South Korean Won) on Citadel Securities for violating Article 176–2 of the Capital Market Act related to market manipulation (spoofing). Citadel Securities conducted high–frequency trading(HFT) on the KOSDAQ through its Merrill Lynch branch, and this was deemed as spoofing using deceptive bids and offers. This fine marks the highest amount ever imposed for HFT–related violations. Citadel Securities has contested this decision and filed an administrative lawsuit at the Seoul Administrative Court.
HFT involves automated trading executed by computer algorithms, making it difficult to determine the intent behind the placement of buy and sell orders. Therefore, to determine whether HFT is engaging in spoofing, it must be assessed based on the characteristics of HFT activities. While the nature of HFT operations presents a potential for spoofing, it also suggests room for dispute regarding the imposition of sanctions for spoofing.
This paper analyzes the Securities Futures Committee's decision to penalize Citadel Securities for spoofing based on the information provided by the committee. Furthermore, the paper suggests that ① regulation should proactively supervise HFT in terms of its efficiency, ② lawsuits' economic aspects, and ③ predictability of offenders' actions. It also argues that managing and regulating HFT proactively is essential, and the use of spoofing as a means of post-facto regulation should be considered as a last resort.
In their press release, the Securities Futures Committee proposes four directions for proactive supervision of HFT: ① implementing trader registration requirements, ② offering market surveillance criteria to securities firms and brokers for preventive measures, and ③ enhancing exchange-level market surveillance through separate systems, ④ Enhancing Regulatory Framework for Algorithmic Trading Practices Based on Case Studies of Major Countries in the Medium to Long Term. These suggestions align well with international trends. The paper also suggests additional proactive regulatory measures such as circuit breakers, mechanisms to cancel clearly erroneous trades, and alternative trading systems (ATS) with speed limits.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 엄세용, "허수성 호가에 대한 시세조종과 교란행위 규제의 평가" 한국증권법학회 18 (18): 183-221, 2017

2 금융위원회, "해외 소재 A 증권사의 고빈도 알고리즘 매매 관련 시장질서 교란행위 혐의에 대한과징금 조치 증선위 의결"

3 임주희, "초단타매매’ 제재받은 메릴린치증권, 귀책사유는?"

4 정혜윤, "증권거래세 0.2%로 낮아지지만…거래 활성 기대감은 ‘글쎄’"

5 노혁준, "증권 불공정거래의 새로운 양태와 대응 ― 고빈도거래(HFT)를 중심으로 ―" 법학연구원 31 (31): 69-117, 2021

6 엄세용, "자본시장법상 시세관련 불공정거래 규제에 대한 연구–시세조종과 허수성 호가의 관계를중심으로" 서강대학교 2017

7 김정수, "알고리즘매매와 고빈도매매의 글로벌 규제동향 – 자본시장의 기술환경 변화를 중심으로" 한국증권법학회 14 (14): 2013

8 한중석, "알고리즘매매 증가에 따른 증시환경 변화와 대응전략" 한국거래소 2011

9 이정수, "알고리즘 거래에 관한 금융법적 규제연구" 서울대학교 2022

10 금융위원회, "안전한 자본시장 이용법" E–BOOK 2015

11 윤시윤, "시타델CEO,작년41불 수익… 역사상 가장 높아"

12 "서울행정법원 2018. 8. 2. 선고 2017구합76432 판결"

13 한국거래소, "메릴린치인터내셔날엘엘씨증권 서울지점에 대해 회원제재금 부과"

14 이일호, "메릴린치 ․ 시타델, 시장교란 ‘짬짜미’로 개미 호주머니 털었나"

15 "대법원 2008. 12. 11. 선고 2006도2718 판결"

16 "대법원 2005. 2. 25. 선고 2004도7479 판결"

17 "대법원 2002. 6. 14. 선고 2002도 1256 판결"

18 김은령, "넥스트레이드, 1호 대체거래소 될까…인력 ․ 시스템 박차"

19 최훈길, "금융위 ․ 금감원, 왜 美증권사에 세계 최초 과징금 때렸나"

20 금융위원회, "금융권 과태료 제도개선 방향 – 금융행정의 신뢰성 ․ 투명성 향상 및 수범자의 예측가능성제고를 위해 금융권 과태료 제도개선을 추진합니다"

21 양기진, "고빈도매매의 규제동향 및 규제방안" 한국증권법학회 14 (14): 85-114, 2013

22 김상환, "고빈도거래 : 현황, 영향분석 및 감독방향" 2015

23 이상무, "거래소, ‘초단타 매매’ 메릴린치증권에 1억 7,500만원 제재금"

24 최은석, "개미 투자자 울리는 ‘초단타 매매’…한국은 규제 사각지대"

25 CNN, "Watch Citadel's high–speed trading in action"

26 Baron, Matthew, "Risk and Return in High Frequency Trading" 2018

27 Bill Conerly, "High Frequency Trading Explained Simply"

28 강영기 ; 박선종, "HFT 등 알고리즘거래에 대한 각국의 규제동향과 해결과제에 관한 비교법적 고찰" 한국증권법학회 19 (19): 135-170, 2018

29 박선종, "ELW 규제의 쟁점에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 35 (35): 199-214, 2011

30 The Blubber, "Citadel Securities Gets $9.66M Fine in South Korea for Local Stock Market Disturbancehttps"

31 Andrew Saks McLeod, "CFTC Fines Algorithmic Trader $2.8 Million For Spoofing In The First Market Abuse Case Brought By Dodd–Frank Act, And Imposes Ban"

32 이수용, "2019 건전증시포럼, 알고리즘 고빈도 거래 증가 대비 필요"

33 온다예, "118억 과징금 처분 취소하라…美시타델증권, 금융당국에 소송"