JP Morgan trader who was unfairly fired after being wrongly accused of ‘spoofing’ market manipulation is awarded £1.6million and his job back
Bradley Jones (pictured), a cash equities trader and financial analyst, won an employment tribunal in London against the US financial giant
A JP Morgan trader who was unfairly fired for alleged historic market abuse has been awarded £1.6million and his job back.
Bradley Jones, a cash equities trader and financial analyst, won an employment tribunal in London against the US financial giant.
A judge ruled the bank changed its approach to a series of trades he made in 2016 because it wanted to appear to be ‘cleaning up its act’.
Mr Jones, who was at the firm for nine years, faced a probe over trades that saw him enter and delete two sell orders in quick succession, known as spoofing.
The move, which happened in 2016, triggered the bank’s surveillance systems as potentially market abuse.
JP Morgan took no further action against him, concluding he had not engaged in misconduct.
But in January 2020 he was dismissed for alleged gross misconduct over the 2016 trades.
A judge ruled the bank (pictured, its London offices) changed its approach to a series of trades he made in 2016 because it wanted to appear to be ‘cleaning up its act’
Employment tribunal judge Stephen Knight ruled the bank ‘radically altered’ its approach to Jones’ actions.
He said Jones had not engaged in spoofing, which is used to give other traders a false impression of demand and was outlawed inthe US in 2010.
Yesterday the tribunal said if Jones is re-engaged by JP Morgan by March 10, 2022, the bank must pay him £1,588,489.87 in pay arrears.
Jones said he wants to be re-employed by the bank as soon as possible and would happily move to either London, New York or Hong Kong to work.
The tribunal heard ‘there is no scope for him being reinstated to a vacant position either at Vice President level or at Executive Director level’.
But Jones said if he cannot be reinstated he would wish to be re-engaged by the bank or an associated employer.
The judge said: ‘If reengagement was not awarded the Claimant would never work in a regulated role in the financial services sector again.
‘In all the circumstances it is practicable and appropriate to order reengagement to the Hong Kong role and it would be practicable for the Associated Employer to comply with it. That is the order I make.’