Our latest article “Competition authorities increase scrutiny in banking industry” by Togan Turan and Gülçin Dere is published on Lexology.
In recent years, competition authorities have not only become more vigorous in investigating anti-trust claims in financial services, but also more diligent in imposing significant fines on banks. In a recent decision, the European Commission (EC) has imposed unprecedented fines of up to EUR 1.07 billion on Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Citigroup, JPMorgan and MUFG Bank (formerly Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi) for getting involved in a foreign exchange spot trading cartel1. One of the addressee of the decision, UBS, was however exempted from fines due to its cooperation with the EC under the EC’s Leniency Program2.
After an extensive investigation, the EC found that competing Forex spot traders exchanged competitively sensitive information via various online professional chatrooms to coordinate their strategies on behalf of five banks3. The in-depth investigation revealed that there were two distinct cartels as part of the overall collusive behaviour in the market for Spot Foreign Exchange4. The first one, the so-called ‘Forex-Three Way Banana Split’ cartel involving Barclays, RBS, Citigroup and JPMorgan, lasted from December 2007 to January 2013, while the second one, known as the ‘Forex- Essex Express’ cartel, involved Barclays, RBS and MUFG Bank and extended from December 2009 to July 20125.
Similarly, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) addressed the guilty pleas of five banks for colluding to manipulate the price of U.S. Dollars and Euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange (FX) spot market in 20156. The DOJ concluded that eurodollar traders at Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays PLC and RBS, the members of the cartel, communicated through an exclusive electronic chat room to influence benchmark exchange rates between December 2007 and January 20137. Citicorp, JPMorgan, Barclays and RBS eventually agreed to pay fines in excess of 2.5 billion Dollars8.
In Turkey, on the other hand, the Turkish Competition Board (“TCB”) investigated similar claims against 14 leading banks including the RBS Istanbul Branch, Barclays Bank PLC., and Citibank A.Ş. in 2016. Interestingly, however, the TCB decided not to initiate a full-fledged investigation against these banks after an extensive preliminary investigation. As far as can be understood from the reasoned decision, the TCB found that the traders exchanged competitively sensitive information, but concluded that the information exchange was not sufficient to create anti-competitive effects in Turkey9.
You can reach the entire text here.
Share
Related persons
You can contact us for detailed information.


Legal Information
This briefing is for information purposes; it is not legal advice. If you have questions, please call us. All rights reserved.
You May Be Interested In
2 June 2025
Pricing of Medicinal Products for Human Use in Türkiye
Pricing of medicinal products in Türkiye is governed by a comprehensive regulatory framework that imposes specific obligations on…
20 May 2025
The Regional Court of Appeal Reaffirmed the Application of the New York Convention and the Prohibition of Révision au Fond in Enforcement Proceedings
In its decision dated 21 April 2025, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Adana Regional Court of Appeal (“Regional Court of Appeal”) ruled that,…
14 May 2025
The Future of Hydrogen Energy in Türkiye
Hydrogen energy is emerging as a key pillar in the global transition towards renewable energy sources. With its versatile applications in…
14 May 2025
Turkish IPOs in Istanbul, London and the United States – Key Issues for Market Participants
The Turkish IPO market has continued its robust growth in recent years, with 179 companies completing IPOs between 2021 and 2024, raising…
29 April 2025
Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment
The Regulation on Private Health Institutions Providing Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment Services (“Regulation“) was published in the…
29 April 2025
The Turkish Regional Court of Appeal in Ankara, 31st Civil Chamber, Confirmed That Preliminary Attachment Can Be Imposed on the Respondent’s Assets Pending Enforcement Proceedings
In proceedings for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, it is crucial to secure the enforcement of the award, in other words, to…