Market Manipulation. Search

OSC v. Jens Brandt and others (spoofing, 2018)

Status unknown

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2018, the regulator brought an action against Jens Brandt, Karl Pawlowicz and Harald Seemann, alleging conduct this library classifies as spoofing. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency OSC
Release number 2018-19
Date filed 2018-05-03
Date resolved 2018-06-01
Court Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario)
Status unknown
Asset class crypto, equities
Criminal parallel No
Defendants Jens Brandt (individual) ; Karl Pawlowicz (individual) ; Harald Seemann (individual)
Techniques Spoofing

What was ordered

Civil penalty
Disgorgement
Prejudgment interest
Total relief
Alleged gain

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

the regulator announced this matter on May 3, 2018 as release 2018-19. The respondents named are Jens Brandt, Karl Pawlowicz and Harald Seemann (3 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario).

This library tags the matter as spoofing, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The conduct is recorded against crypto and equities.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

Timeline

  1. 2018-05-03 Settlement Agreement
  2. 2018-05-03 Statement of Allegations
  3. 2018-05-07 Other
  4. 2018-05-07 Reasons and Decision
  5. 2018-05-29 Notice of Hearing
  6. 2018-05-29 Settlement Agreement
  7. 2018-05-29 Settlement Agreement
  8. 2018-05-30 Notice of Hearing
  9. 2018-06-01 Other
  10. 2018-06-01 Other
  11. 2018-06-01 Document
  12. 2018-06-01 Reasons and Decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Frank M. Cerisano Jr. (spoofing, 2026) SEC 2026-08-10 Spoofing judgment
SEC v. Mingran Wang (spoofing, 2026) SEC 2026-06-25 Spoofing settled
CFTC v. New York Trader (spoofing, 2026) CFTC 2026-05-06 Spoofing $200k judgment
CFTC v. Gregg Smith (spoofing, 2026) CFTC 2026-01-16 Spoofing , Wash Trading $200k judgment
SEC v. Artur Khachatryan (spoofing, 2025) SEC 2025-12-16 Spoofing judgment
SEC v. M Holdings Securities, Inc. (spoofing, 2025) SEC 2025-11-25 Spoofing settled

Record added September 9, 2026. submit a correction.