In Uncategorized on 15/10/2015 at 4:35 pm
This case surprised me because all that happened was that a bank account here was usedto buy the shares. Otherwise everything was done overseas.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said in a statement on Wednesday it fined Rajiv, a former Indonesia investment banking head of UBS, S$434,912 (US$313,857) in the 2012 insider trading case. It sweems the guy juz lost his job at Caryle as head of its Indon division.
The MAS said Rajiv bought 1 million PT Bank Danamon shares in March 2012 through his wife’s bank account in Singapore after he possessed price-sensitive and non-public information on a proposed acquisition of Danamon by Singapore’s DBS Bank.
DBS announced the proposed acquisition in April 2012 and MAS said Rajiv made a profit of S$173,965 from his insider trades when he was with UBS. Due to regulatory issues, DBS subsequently pulled the plug on the Danamon deal.
The MAS said Rajiv admitted breaking the securities law and paid MAS the civil penalty without court action.
In Financial competency on 21/02/2012 at 6:28 am
S’pore’s Court of Appeal has, for the first time, given a detailed outline of what constitutes insider trading here. This outline includes:
— even if the information used by an insider to trade did not affect the share price greatly, it could still be considered material and therefore amount to unlawful trading*;
— information could qualify as being “generally available” only if the common investor could make deductions, conclusions or inferences from the information of the same quality as the information the insider possessed.
— “‘generally available” information should not be too narrowly defined and a balance should be struck so that the law would not be too onerous on market participants;
— information gained fortuitously or through diligence and a keen analysis of public information should be considered as “generally available”; and
— the elements of insider trading, as set out in the grounds, applied equally to civil and criminal cases. (Of course, the burden of proof in pro
*Even though some foreign courts have stated that if a firm’s disclosure of information has no effect on its share price, then that information is immaterial as a matter of law, this does not apply. Here the approach of using market impact evidence is “relevant but not conclusive”. The relevant test is whether a reasonable person would expect the information to affect a common investor, and not to examine in detail what actually happened to the share price later.
In Corporate governance on 05/01/2011 at 5:23 am
What US prosecutors are targeting
On May 22, 2009, an unnamed investment professional rang up James Fleishman, a salesman at the consulting firm Primary Global Research.
The anonymous executive was seeking a very particular type of service: an expert who could provide specific, timely information about a particular company. In other words, someone with a “pretty good handle on what’s happening.”
Three weeks later, Mr. Fleishman’s firm had set up for its client a phone call with a manager at Dell, who divulged sensitive information like sales figures and monthly forecasts.
Such conversations — recorded for federal investigators and described in a criminal complaint filed on Thursday — underpin the newest batch of insider trading arrests. With the latest round of charges, authorities have indicated that they are taking aim at so-called expert networks, firms that offer paid access to professionals with deep knowledge of their industries.