Browse CISI Exam Guides: UK RPI, IRT, Risk, CFC & Investment Management

CISI CFC Fraud and Market Abuse Guide

CISI Combating Financial Crime chapter guide for fraud and market abuse, with section lessons, UK control cues, and review priorities.

Fraud and Market Abuse is a CISI Combating Financial Crime exam topic weighted at 4%. Use this chapter landing page to classify the crime or control problem first, then move into the section lessons for the specific UK authority, firm obligation, escalation, reporting, and evidence cues.

What this topic is really testing

  • fraud concepts and the uk fraud act 2006
  • types of fraud
  • market abuse and insider dealing
  • sarbanes-oxley act 2002

This chapter joins two related but distinct ideas. Fraud is about dishonest behaviour that creates gain, loss, or risk of loss. Market abuse is about behaviour that damages market integrity, such as insider dealing, improper disclosure, manipulation, or misleading signals. A strong answer does not collapse both into a vague “bad conduct” label. It identifies the conduct type, the harmed party or market, and the control route.

The Sarbanes-Oxley material is useful as a governance comparison. It points candidates toward internal controls, reporting integrity, certification, audit discipline, and senior accountability. The exam is unlikely to reward detailed U.S. legal citation for its own sake; it is more likely to test the reason those controls matter.

Fraud versus market-abuse classifier

Pattern in the factsBetter classificationMain control angle
false representation to obtain money or avoid lossfraudverification, investigation, evidence, reporting, remediation
employee diverts client assets or manipulates recordsinternal fraudsegregation of duties, access control, audit trail, escalation
account takeover, identity misuse, or payment redirectionexternal fraudauthentication, call-back controls, transaction monitoring
trading while holding inside informationinsider dealing or market abusesurveillance, restricted list, wall-crossing, escalation
orders designed to mislead the marketmarket manipulationtrade surveillance, supervision, market-abuse escalation
misleading public disclosure or reporting controls failurereporting integrity issuegovernance, controls, audit, senior accountability

Market-integrity decision sequence

  1. identify whether the case is fraud, insider dealing, manipulation, improper disclosure, or weak reporting control
  2. decide who is harmed: client, firm, market, issuer, investors, or public confidence
  3. preserve records and transaction evidence
  4. escalate through fraud, compliance, surveillance, or governance channels as appropriate
  5. remediate the control weakness if the facts show process failure rather than one isolated event

Section lessons

LessonMain review cue
Fraud concepts and the UK Fraud Act 2006Describe the broad purpose of the UK Fraud Act 2006 in organizing fraud offences around dishonest behaviour and gain-or-loss outcomes
Types of fraudIdentify common internal and external fraud types relevant to financial-services firms, including identity fraud, payment fraud, mandate fraud, procurement fraud, and employee misconduct
Market abuse and insider dealingDescribe market abuse and explain why abusive conduct can damage market integrity and investor confidence
Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002Understand the broad purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 in strengthening governance, controls, and reporting integrity

Better first instincts

If the case feels most like…Better first move
dishonest customer, employee, or third-party statementclassify the fraud type and preserve evidence
suspicious trading around inside informationmove to market-abuse and surveillance logic
false accounting or weak reporting controlsthink governance, internal control, and reporting integrity
payment redirection or identity misusefocus on authentication, transaction controls, and remediation
ignored alerts or access-control weaknesstreat the issue as both event and control failure

Common traps

  • using financial crime as a vague label instead of classifying the threat
  • confusing sanctions, tax, bribery, fraud, terrorist financing, and money laundering controls
  • treating a reporting step as complete when the firm also needs evidence, prevention, and follow-up
  • choosing the strictest-sounding answer instead of the one that fits the authority, duty, and timing
  • treating market abuse as ordinary poor investment performance
  • missing internal fraud because the external customer also behaved suspiciously
  • assuming senior accountability is irrelevant when the visible event is operational
  • focusing on loss amount while ignoring market integrity and public-confidence harm

Sample Exam Question

An employee learns that an issuer client is about to announce materially negative results and tells a friend to sell shares before the announcement. The employee says no client money was stolen, so the firm should treat the matter only as a staff conduct issue. What is the strongest classification?

  • A. Market abuse or insider-dealing concern requiring escalation and evidence preservation
  • B. Only ordinary investment risk because the share price may fall
  • C. Only tax evasion because a gain may be made
  • D. No concern because the employee did not personally trade

Answer: A.

The facts point to improper use or disclosure of inside information and potential market abuse. The absence of direct theft does not remove the market-integrity concern.

In this section

Revised on Friday, May 29, 2026