Manipulation in the gold and silver market: What is proven – and what is not.

ByDirk Wasserthal
AI-generated symbolic image with gold and silver coins in front of abstract trading data on gold price manipulation

Gold price manipulation (as well as silver price manipulation) is one of the most controversial topics surrounding precious metals. On the one hand, there are proven cases in which traders generated false signals or attempted to influence a reference price by placing orders without intending to execute them. On the other hand, there are far-reaching claims that banks, central banks, and governments have been working together to keep precious metal prices permanently low for decades.

The two should not be confused.

Short answer: Yes, there has been demonstrable manipulation in the gold and silver markets. Traders have been convicted of spoofing, fraud, and attempted price manipulation; several banks have been subject to extensive regulatory orders and fines. These cases document specific, sometimes years-long, illicit trading practices. However, they do not prove a sustained, coordinated suppression of the global gold or silver price.

The factually correct answer is therefore neither “everything is manipulated” nor “manipulation doesn’t exist.” What matters is which specific claim is being investigated and what evidence supports it .

Key statements at a glance

StatementClassification
Traders have influenced gold and silver futures with no-take orders.Proven. There are official findings, confessions, and criminal convictions.
Individual manipulations were able to create artificial prices in the short term.Proven. This is explicitly stated, among other things, in orders issued by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Central banks have historically intervened in the gold market.Documented. A well-known example is the London Gold Pool from 1961 to 1968.
Large futures positions can influence prices.Fundamentally plausible and recognized by regulators. However, a large position alone does not prove a legal violation.
The existence of futures or so-called paper gold proves an artificial gold price.Not documented. Futures also fulfill legitimate functions in pricing, hedging, and arbitrage.
Banks and central banks have jointly kept gold and silver prices permanently low for decades.Not proven by publicly available evidence.
The stock market crash at the beginning of 2026 was the result of manipulation.Not documented. As of August 2026, there is no published official or judicial ruling on this matter.

What exactly does market manipulation mean?

In common parlance, almost any strong or unexpected price movement is quickly labeled as manipulation. Legally and economically, the term is narrower.

For example, manipulation might aim to…

  • to create a false impression of supply or demand,
  • to induce other market participants to perform certain actions through deceptive orders,
  • to deliberately influence a reference or billing price,
  • Triggering stop-loss orders from customers,
  • or to gain control over a market through an exceptionally large and concentrated position.

Not every large order, not every short position, and not every abrupt price movement is therefore automatically manipulative. A reliable assessment depends on factors such as intent, behavior, market position, communication, and actual impact .

What is spoofing?

Spoofing, in simple terms, refers to placing buy or sell orders with the intention of canceling them before execution. The orders are intended to create the illusion of supply or demand for other market participants, where none actually exists.

A typical scheme looks like this:

  1. A dealer places a small, genuine order that he wants to have carried out.
  2. On the opposite side of the market, he is placing significantly larger orders.
  3. These large orders give the impression of strong buying or selling interest.
  4. Other market participants are reacting to this perceived interest.
  5. The dealer receives a lower price for his genuine order and deletes the fraudulent orders.

The crucial point is not that an order is later canceled. Orders are modified or deleted for many legitimate reasons in normal trading. However, in spoofing, the intention from the outset is not to execute the order and thus create a misleading market signal.

How are gold and silver prices determined?

There isn’t one single person who sets the world market price for gold or silver every morning. Price formation occurs through the interplay of several closely interconnected markets:

  • the London over-the-counter precious metals market,
  • the LBMA reference prices,
  • Futures markets such as COMEX,
  • the physical wholesale
  • other trading centers in Asia, Europe and North America,
  • as well as ongoing arbitrage transactions between spot, futures and regional markets.

Futures can have a significant influence on short-term price formation. At the same time, futures and spot markets are linked through arbitrage, hedging transactions, and potential physical delivery. A futures price is therefore neither completely independent of the physical market nor simply a meaningless “paper copy” of it.

Today’s LBMA Gold Price is independently administered by ICE Benchmark Administration. According to the LBMA, the process is electronic, tradable, auditable, and aligned with IOSCO Principles for Financial Market Benchmarks. Participants are subject to codes of conduct and a regulatory framework. This does not mean that any market is completely protected against misconduct. However, it clearly distinguishes today’s process from the previous London Gold Fixing, which was conducted by telephone.

Our article “The current gold price: How it is created and how the value of gold can be calculated” explains in detail how the spot price, LBMA Gold Price, COMEX futures and physical trading basically interact.

Proven case: JPMorgan and years of spoofing

The most extensive publicly documented case in modern precious metals trading involves JPMorgan and several former traders of the institute.

In 2020, the CFTC determined that traders on precious metals and U.S. Treasury desks had placed hundreds of thousands of orders over at least eight years with the intention of canceling them before execution. These orders affected futures contracts for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, among other commodities. According to the findings, the orders were intended to generate false signals about supply and demand. In numerous cases, the traders acted with manipulation intent, creating artificial prices.

Parallel to the CFTC order, JPMorgan entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA; United States v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. , No. 20-CR-175, D. Conn.) with the U.S. Department of Justice. In this agreement, the institution accepted a statement of facts regarding its unlawful trading practices and agreed to pay a total of $920,203,609 in fines, disgorgement, and compensation; payments made in the consolidated CFTC and SEC proceedings were partially credited. The DPA was explicitly not a criminal conviction of the institution : prosecution was initially deferred. After the Department of Justice determined that JPMorgan had fulfilled its obligations, the court definitively dismissed the case on March 29, 2024.

The legal proceedings against the company did not end there. In the criminal case United States v. Smith , No. 19-cr-669 (ND Ill.) , a jury convicted former JPMorgan traders Gregg Smith and Michael Nowak in 2022 on charges including fraud, spoofing, and attempted price manipulation. Co-defendant and former sales representative Jeffrey Ruffo was charged only with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to commit various fraud and market abuse offenses; he was acquitted of both charges . Smith and Nowak were also acquitted of these two additional charges, but found guilty on the other aforementioned counts. In 2023, Smith received a two-year prison sentence; Nowak was sentenced to one year and one day. On December 22, 2025, in the supplementary CFTC civil case ( CFTC v. Nowak et al. , No. 1:19-cv-06163, ND Ill.), court consent orders were also issued against both parties, imposing fines and temporary trading bans; the CFTC published its notice on this matter on January 16, 2026 .

What this case proves

The JPMorgan complex demonstrates that

  • that spoofing in the precious metals trade was not just a theoretical possibility,
  • that the behavior occurred over years and in very large numbers
  • that several traders and management levels of a major precious metals desk were affected,
  • and that fraudulent orders in some cases created artificial prices and harmed other market participants.

Which this case does not prove

The procedures do not allow us to deduce that

  • that every noticeable gold or silver price movement is manipulated,
  • that all banks acted together,
  • that the long-term price level of gold or silver was artificially kept low for decades,
  • or how high the gold and silver prices would have been at a particular time without the observed events.

The authorities documented specific trading sequences and their consequences. However, they did not thereby establish an alternative “true” long-term price level for precious metals.

Further CFTC proceedings against Deutsche Bank and UBS

JPMorgan was not the only institution that the CFTC took action against for trading precious metal futures.

Deutsche Bank

In 2018, the CFTC fined Deutsche Bank $30 million . Following the regulatory order, traders had used various spoofing techniques on precious metal futures between at least February 2008 and September 2014. The CFTC also identified instances where traders manipulated prices to trigger customers’ stop-loss orders. According to the findings, this created the false impression of greater market depth or stronger buying or selling pressure.

UBS

Also in 2018, the CFTC fined UBS $15 million . The agency determined that between January 2008 and at least December 2013, traders placed large orders with the intent to cancel positions, particularly in gold and silver futures. This involved false signals in the order book and attempts to trigger client stop orders.

These proceedings involved amicably settled official orders, not criminal jury verdicts against the institutions. Nevertheless, the cases demonstrate that improper practices were not limited to a single individual or institution. The scope of the evidence remains limited: what is documented are the actions and time periods described in the orders – not comprehensive, market-wide control of precious metal prices.

The London Gold Fix and the Barclays case of 2012

Another case did not concern spoofing in ongoing futures trading, but rather the London gold fixing at that time.

In 2014, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fined Barclays approximately £26 million . Precious metals trader Daniel Plunkett was also fined and barred from regulated activities.

The background to this was an exotic option held by a client, linked to the gold price at the afternoon fixing on June 28, 2012. Had the fixing price been above $1,558.96, Barclays would have had to pay the client $3.9 million. According to the FCA’s findings, Plunkett placed orders during the fixing with the aim of increasing the probability of a price below this threshold. The price was ultimately fixed just below it. Barclays did not have to make the payment; Plunkett’s trading book, according to the FCA, also generated an additional $1.75 million profit before hedging costs.

The FCA not only objected to the dealer’s conduct, but also to inadequate controls and conflicts of interest at Barclays. This case provides concrete evidence that a reference price was deliberately manipulated in a specific situation.

However, this is not proof that every historical gold fixing price was wrong or that today’s LBMA procedure works identically. In March 2015, the previous procedure was replaced by an independently administered electronic auction.

The London Gold Pool: documented intervention, but a different category

The London Gold Pool was formed in 1961 by eight central banks. Great Britain, the United States, West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland contributed gold reserves to keep the market price close to the official Bretton Woods parity of US$35 per troy ounce. France ceased active participation after June 1967; the United States assumed its contribution. In its final phase, seven active members traded. The Federal Reserve History and the 1968 IMF Annual Report document the composition, purpose, and dissolution of the pool.

This London Gold Pool is not a matter of speculation. Its creation, operation, and collapse are documented in records from central banks, the International Monetary Fund, the US government, and the Bank for International Settlements. Following renewed strong buying pressure, the pool collapsed in March 1968. Subsequently, a two-tiered system emerged, with an official gold price for transactions between monetary authorities and a price that was essentially market-driven in private trading.

Was this gold price manipulation? The answer depends on the definition used.

In a broader sense, this was clearly a coordinated intervention aimed at limiting a market price. However, it was not a covert spoofing strategy by individual traders, but rather part of the official monetary policy of a fixed exchange rate system. These categories should not be conflated. Government market intervention can be extremely significant economically without being equated with the criminal act of falsely falsifying orders.

The London Gold Pool therefore deserves its own article. Its failure was an important precursor to the Nixon shock of 1971 and the end of dollar-gold convertibility .

The Hunt Brothers: Manipulation can also drive prices up.

Discussions about precious metal manipulation often focus exclusively on allegedly artificially suppressed prices. The silver market of 1979 and 1980 demonstrates that exceptionally concentrated positions can also target rising prices.

Brothers Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt, together with associated market participants, amassed very large holdings of physical silver and silver futures. According to later published CFTC data, the Hunt and Conti groups owned more than 50 percent of the deliverable silver stocks in COMEX-approved warehouses at the end of December 1979. Their long positions in the March 1980 futures contract simultaneously represented 122 percent of the silver stocks held there.

The CFTC later explicitly described the events as manipulation. Its regulatory analysis also demonstrates how the crisis contributed to the further development of position limits and monitoring rules. This is not merely a retrospective description by the authorities: In the civil case Minpeco, SA v. Hunt , No. 81 Civ. 7619 (SDNY), a jury in 1988 found, among other things, violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, antitrust law, and New York fraud law. In 1989, the court rejected the relevant motions to overturn the jury verdict or to order a new trial; the decision is published as 718 F. Supp. 168 (SDNY 1989) . This was a civil liability determination , not a criminal conviction.

This case is important because it refutes a common oversimplification: market manipulation does not automatically mean that a price is driven down. The goal can equally be to drive a price up or to reach a settlement threshold.

The fact that attempts to manipulate gold prices can also lead to rising prices is further demonstrated by the so-called Gold Corner of 1869. We discuss the background in detail in the article “The Original Black Friday 1869: When It Wasn’t About Shopping, But About Gold” .

This topic will also be discussed in detail in a separate article.

Why not every unusual price movement is manipulation

Gold and especially silver can fluctuate dramatically within a short period of time. There are numerous possible reasons for this:

  • surprising interest rate or inflation data,
  • Changes in interest rate expectations and real interest rates ,
  • Movements of the US dollar,
  • geopolitical events,
  • large fund or hedging transactions,
  • triggering many stop-loss orders,
  • algorithmic trading,
  • lower liquidity during certain trading hours,
  • Changes in margin requirements,
  • as well as abrupt position closures after price losses.

A large sell order can move a price without being illegal. A market participant is generally allowed to sell, hedge, or bet on falling prices. This behavior becomes problematic, for example, when there is an intent to deceive, an abuse of a dominant market position, or the creation of an artificial signal.

Even a higher premium for physical coins does not, in itself, prove manipulation of the futures price. During periods of strong end-customer demand, minting capacity, logistics, inventory, and dealer availability can become scarce. In such cases, the end-customer price of a specific product can rise significantly more than the international wholesale or futures price.

What were the findings of the investigations into the alleged persistent suppression of the silver price?

A reliable assessment includes not only cases that ended with sanctions. Equally important are investigations in which authorities found insufficient evidence for a particular claim.

In 2008, the CFTC published a study on large short positions in the silver futures market . Among other things, it analyzed the concentration of large traders, the relationship between futures and spot prices, and the performance of silver compared to other precious metals. For the period under investigation, the agency found no evidence of manipulation of the silver futures market and no observable correlation between a higher concentration of large short positions and lower silver prices.

In the same year, following further complaints, the CFTC opened a comprehensive investigation into possible manipulation of the silver market. According to the agency, more than 7,000 man-hours were spent analyzing position, transaction, option, futures, physical, and over-the-counter data, as well as interviewing witnesses. The investigation was closed in 2013. The agency stated that, based on the legal and evidentiary situation available at the time, there was no sound basis for proceedings against a company or its employees.

This result, too, must be interpreted with caution. It does not prove that the silver market was never manipulated. Later investigations did indeed document spoofing in silver futures. However, it does mean that the specific allegation, investigated for years, of more widespread silver market manipulation could not be sufficiently substantiated.

This is precisely where it becomes clear why blanket statements in both directions are wrong:

  • Proven spoofing does not necessarily imply decades of proven price suppression.
  • The fact that an investigation is closed without results does not mean that every conceivable misconduct has been ruled out.

Does “paper gold” prove an artificial gold price?

The term “paper gold” encompasses a wide variety of instruments: futures, options, exchange-traded products, unallocated metal accounts, swaps, and other claims linked to gold. These instruments have different legal structures, counterparty risks, and delivery terms. Therefore, a single, general “paper-to-physical” ratio is often not very meaningful.

The trading volume of futures can significantly exceed the amount of metal actually delivered. However, this does not automatically mean that more people are simultaneously claiming the same specific gold bar. Many market participants want to hedge against price fluctuations or trade and close or roll their positions before expiration. Futures contracts are also a tool for price discovery and risk transfer.

This does not mean that derivatives markets are harmless or meaningless. High leverage, concentrated positions, and deceptive orders can amplify short-term movements or be misused. However, the existence of a large derivatives market is not proof of manipulation. Additional evidence of specific behavior, intent, and an artificial price effect would be required.

Is the price of gold being kept artificially low indefinitely?

For specific points in time and trading sequences, an artificial price effect has been officially documented. However, there is no publicly verifiable evidence for the far more extensive claim of a decades-long, centrally coordinated suppression of the world market price.

Such a thesis would have to explain and substantiate, among other things,

  • which actors acted in a coordinated manner over which period of time,
  • which specific transactions served to suppress prices,
  • how the vote was documented,
  • how physical demand, mine supply and arbitrage were permanently neutralized,
  • who benefited economically,
  • and how high the price would have been without these interventions.

Isolated unusual daily movements, large short positions, or large futures volumes are not sufficient proof. They may warrant an investigation, but they do not replace a chain of evidence.

It is equally important to remember that a lack of public evidence is not mathematical proof that a process is impossible. Markets are not completely transparent, law enforcement agencies can overlook facts, and not every problematic behavior leads to a public investigation. Anyone making a far-reaching claim must nevertheless support it with solid evidence. The burden of proof must not be reversed by treating every missing document as evidence of particularly well-concealed coordination.

Price movements in 2026: a strong correction is not yet proof of manipulation

The exceptional movements of 2026 provide a good test for this system. For a uniform comparison, we initially use the settlement prices of the respective front-month COMEX contract. In this series, gold reached a record high of US$5,318.40 per troy ounce on January 29, 2026; silver reached US$115.08 on January 26. On July 16, the year’s lows to date were US$3,985.60 and US$55.898, respectively . This represented declines of approximately 25 and 51 percent. By the end of August, both markets had partially recovered but remained significantly below their January highs. The frequently cited silver record of US$121.64 on January 29, however, was an intraday high in the spot market. It does not belong to the same data series as the front-month settlement of US$115.08.

January 30th was particularly striking. According to Reuters , US gold futures for February closed 11.4 percent lower at $4,745.10. Spot gold was down 9.5 percent late in the trading day. Spot silver was down 27.7 percent at $83.99 at that time, having fallen as low as $77.72; based on LSEG data dating back to 1982, this indicated the largest daily loss in the series. The figure of approximately 36 percent sometimes cited represents the range between the previous day’s record spot high and the daily low on January 30th. It is neither the official daily loss nor a futures settlement result. This distinction does not diminish the extraordinary movement, but it prevents different metrics from being combined to create an even more dramatic figure.

Specific market mechanisms are documented for parts of the subsequent movement. Since January 13, the CME has set margins for gold, silver, platinum, and palladium as a percentage of the respective contract value; previously, fixed dollar amounts applied. Reuters documented three increases under the new method , which took effect after the close of trading on January 30, February 2, and February 6. In the last adjustment, for accounts without an elevated risk profile, both the initial and maintenance margins for COMEX 100 gold futures increased from 8 to 9 percent, and for COMEX 5000 silver futures from 15 to 18 percent. CME Notice 26-057 confirms the formal effective date after the close of trading on February 6; the specific percentages and the change in methodology are attributed to Reuters.

Higher margins serve to protect the clearing house against defaults. At the same time, they increase the capital requirements of leveraged positions and can therefore exacerbate position reductions or forced liquidations. Reuters also reported profit-taking, the reduction of speculative positions, a stronger US dollar, and changes in interest rate and central bank expectations. These are documented or plausible influencing factors; their respective contribution to a specific daily movement cannot be precisely calculated from them. Likewise, a margin change does not necessarily mean that it caused the entire price decline, nor that it was manipulative.

As of August 2026, we are not aware of any published official or judicial finding that the correction of 2026 was manipulated. This does not preclude later findings. It simply means that the magnitude of a price drop is a reason for close examination, but not yet proof of deception, collusion, or an artificially inflated price.

What does this mean for buyers of physical gold coins?

Proven short-term manipulations are relevant to the integrity of the entire market. However, their significance for a specific coin purchase should not be overestimated or misinterpreted.

For a standardized bullion coin, the international gold price forms a key starting point. Other factors include premium, availability, minting and distribution costs, insurance, trading margin, and the specific market situation.

For rare certified gold coins, however, the metal value is only one of several value components. Mintage, actual market availability, condition, NGC or PCGS population, top-pop status, provenance, and collector demand can carry significantly more weight than a short-term movement in the spot price.

For buyers, specific and verifiable questions are therefore often more helpful than a general manipulation theory:

  • Which reference price is used?
  • How high is the premium and what explains it?
  • How liquid is the specific coin actually?
  • Is a rarity rating based on print run, grading population, or actual market availability?
  • Are asking prices or actual sales figures the basis for comparison?
  • What risks are involved in a later sale?

These questions do not make a purchase risk-free. However, they lead to a significantly more reliable assessment than the assumption that every unexpected price movement must be the result of extensive manipulation.

This is separate from the question of whether gold actually has a stabilizing effect in times of crisis. This is discussed in detail in our article “Is Gold a Safe Haven?” .

Conclusion: Specific manipulations have been proven – but not permanent overall control.

The gold and silver market was not free from manipulation. Spoofing was practiced for years, traders were convicted, banks had to pay hefty fines, and one trader, according to the British Financial Conduct Authority, attempted to manipulate a gold reference price to benefit his own trading book. Historical government interventions, such as the London Gold Pool, are also extensively documented.

These facts justify a critical examination of the precious metals markets. However, they do not justify every further conclusion.

Anyone who concludes from a proven instance of spoofing that there has been decades of global price suppression is ignoring the available evidence. Conversely, anyone who claims that manipulations are mere fabrications is ignoring documented official rulings and convictions.

The reliable answer lies somewhere in between:

Manipulations of the gold and silver markets have been proven in specific cases. However, publicly available evidence does not demonstrate sustained, centrally coordinated control of the overall price level.

Frequently asked questions about gold and silver price manipulation

Is the gold price being manipulated?

In specific cases, yes. Authorities and courts have documented spoofing, attempted price manipulation, and targeted influence on a gold reference price. However, this does not mean that the gold price is controlled overall or permanently by a central group.

What is spoofing in the gold market?

Spoofing involves a trader placing orders that they do not intend to execute. The goal is to create a false impression of supply or demand so that a genuine order can be executed at a lower price.

Are large short positions proof of manipulation?

No. Short positions can be used for speculation, hedging, or brokering client transactions. Size and concentration can be a warning sign and subject to regulatory scrutiny. However, further evidence is required to prove manipulation.

Does futures trading prove that the physical gold price is artificial?

No. Futures influence price formation and can be misused, but they also fulfill legitimate functions in hedging, arbitrage, and risk transfer. Their existence or high trading volume alone does not prove manipulation.

Is today’s LBMA gold price comparable to the earlier London Gold Fixing?

Both are reference prices for the London gold market, but the methodology has fundamentally changed. Since 2015, the LBMA Gold Price has been determined through an electronically tradable and verifiable auction, independently administered by ICE Benchmark Administration. No method can eliminate all misconduct; however, the current setup incorporates different control and governance structures than the previous fixing.

Was the London Gold Pool rigged?

It was an officially coordinated intervention, initiated in 1961 by eight central banks, to keep the gold price close to US$35 per troy ounce in the Bretton Woods system. After France’s withdrawal in 1967, seven members remained active in the final phase. In a broader economic sense, the market price was deliberately manipulated. Legally and methodologically, however, this is distinct from fraudulent spoofing by traders.

Why are there so many allegations of manipulation, especially with silver?

Silver has a smaller market than gold, is often more volatile, and is simultaneously in demand as both an investment and industrial metal. Large positions and abrupt price movements therefore attract particular attention. This can warrant investigation, but is not in itself proof of manipulation.

Does manipulation also affect the price of rare gold coins?

Short-term fluctuations in the gold price can affect the metal’s value. However, for rare collector coins, rarity, condition, certification, population, provenance, demand, and actual availability also determine the market value. The spot price is only one of several factors.

Was the stock market crash at the beginning of 2026 manipulated?

As of August 2026, no published official or judicial findings exist to support this. The price drop was exceptionally sharp. Documented factors include profit-taking, the reduction of speculative positions, a stronger US dollar, changes in interest rate and central bank expectations, and higher margin requirements. These factors can explain or exacerbate selling pressure; however, they do not, on their own, prove collusion or artificial pricing. Subsequent investigative or court documents could alter this assessment.

About the author

Dirk Wasserthal is co-founder and managing director of Wasserthal RareCoin.Store. He focuses on the history of gold coins, the role of gold in different monetary systems, and the transparent classification of metal value, rarity, condition, and collector value.

Transparency note

Wasserthal RareCoin.Store deals in rare, certified gold coins and therefore has a financial interest in the gold and collector coin market. This article serves solely for historical, market-related, and general economic information. It does not constitute individual investment, legal, or tax advice. Historical developments and individual cases of market abuse do not allow for reliable predictions about future gold or silver prices.

This article primarily uses publicly available documents from courts, regulatory authorities, central banks, and international institutions. Criminal convictions, official settlements and sanction decisions, historical interventions, and investigations without charges are explicitly distinguished. The existence of individual proven instances of manipulation is not considered proof of persistent global price suppression. Conversely, the fact that an investigation concluded without findings does not lead to the conclusion that manipulation can be ruled out entirely.

Sources

Sources last checked in August 2026.

Similar Posts