Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 18 of 2021

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 18 of 2021
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 18 of 2021

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 6 December, 2021 | 0

    Is ‘intention to use inside information’ required to be proved for one to be liable for insider trading?

    Case:

    SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA v. SREESANTHAN ELIATHAMBY [2021] 7 CLJ 913

    Brief Facts:

    • Sreesanthan (“the Lawyer”) is a corporate lawyer of some considerable repute.

     

    • The Securities Commission Malaysia (“the SCM”) sought to make the Lawyer liable in a civil action for insider trading.

     

    • In March 2006, CIMB Investment Bank Berhad (“CIMB”) came up with a plan for the privatisation of Worldwide Holdings Berhad (“WHB”)

     

    • At the time, WHB was a public company listed on Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad, the Malaysia stock exchange.

     

    • Approximately 51% of WHB’s shares were held by Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (“PKNS”), the state development agency for Selangor. WHB was the only listed subsidiary of PKNS.

     

    • From May to June of 2006, representatives of CIMB communicated with the Lawyer to obtain legal advice on legal aspects of the proposed privatisation.

     

    • It was the SMC’s case that, during these interactions between the CIMB personnel and the Lawyer, the Lawyer came into possession of information that PKNS was proposing to privatise its listed subsidiary, and that because WHB was the only listed subsidiary of PKNS, the Lawyer had deduced the identity of WHB.

     

    • The Lawyer acquired 600,000 shares in WHB in June and July 2006.

     

    • The Lawyer sold his WHB shares in September 2006, from which a gain of approximately RM678,134.00 was recorded (before transaction costs).

     

    • The SCM contended that the Lawyer contravened the insider trading provisions in s. 89E(2)(a) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 by purchasing the Worldwide shares while in possession of material non-public information.

    HIGH COURT DECISION – ORDER GRANTED!

    • The High Court found that the SCM had proven its case against the Lawyer and that none of the defences had been made out.

     

    • The insider trading prohibition under Malaysian law does not create strict liability offences. Mens rea [intention] must be proven and to establish mens rea for that purpose, it has to be proven that the Lawyer knew or ought reasonably to have known that the information in his possession was not generally available to others.

     

    • There is, however, no requirement for the SCM to prove an intention to use the inside information.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil