XXXX v XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara

01f-17-05-2024w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 7 April 2025 • 01(f)-17-05/2024(W) • 63 min read
15 cases cited (4 SG, 11 foreign)

Catchwords

Shares - Insider trading - Whether intent to use the alleged inside information which forms the mens rea or mental element is required to ground liability pursuant to Section 89E of the SIA, or whether it is a matter of strict liability that requires proof of mere possession of inside information, or whether proof only that the Defendant knew that the information was not generally available information, suffices (Breach Issue) - Whether the relevant time to assess the materiality of the alleged inside information is at the time the impugned acquisition occurs, or whether a Court may consider the facts and circumstances occurring after the time of the impugned acquisition (Materiality Issue) - Whether the power given solely to the Attorney General (AG) to institute “any proceedings for an offence” under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution (FC) extends to a civil action brought under Section 90 and Section 90A(5) of the SIA (Constitutional Issue).

Practice Areas

Shares

Judges (3)

Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil Coram Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim Delivered Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera Delivered

Counsel (15)

Jabatan Peguam Negara Firm Shan Chambers Firm Sreenevasan Young Firm Abraham Au Counsel Appellant Daniel Ariff Tung Adib Vincent Tung Counsel Respondent Kristen Ta Counsel Appellant Lau Mark Chi-Ming Counsel Appellant Liew Horng Bin Counsel Intervener Low Wen Zhen Counsel Respondent Mageswary Karroppiah Counsel Respondent Profesor Datuk Dr. Gurdial Singh Nijar Counsel Appellant Shamsul Bin Bolhassan Counsel Intervener Shoba Venu Gopal Counsel Respondent Siew Hui Yi Counsel Respondent Sm Shanmugam Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

Jabatan Peguam Negara Amicus Curiae Xxxx Appellant Xxxx Respondent

Case Significance

XXXX v XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara is a Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) decision dated April 7, 2025 (citation: 01f-17-05-2024w). <p>This appeal concerned insider trading under the Securities Industry Act 1983, specifically whether intent is required for liability under Section 89E, and the relevant time to assess materiality of inside information. The Federal Court held that Section 89E requires actual knowledge that the information was not generally available, and that materiality can be assessed by reference to post-event information. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision affirming liability was up The panel comprised Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil, Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim and Seri Vazeer Alam bin Mydin Meera, with Hasnah binti Dato' Mohammed Hashim delivering the judgment.

Summary

This appeal concerned insider trading under the Securities Industry Act 1983, specifically whether intent is required for liability under Section 89E, and the relevant time to assess materiality of inside information. The Federal Court held that Section 89E requires actual knowledge that the information was not generally available, and that materiality can be assessed by reference to post-event information. The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's decision affirming liability was upheld.

What was the outcome of XXXX v XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara?

<p>This appeal concerned insider trading under the Securities Industry Act 1983, specifically whether intent is required for liability under Section 8...

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)
Federal Constitution
Art 145(3)
Securities Industry Act 1983
s 89E
Securities and Futures Act
s 220
Securities Industries Act 1993
s 89
Securities Industry Act
s 89E(1)(a)

Cases Cited (15)

SG (2)
[1999] SGHC 204 [2012] SGCA 12
SLR (2)
[1999] 2 SLR(R) 1176 [2012] 2 SLR 913
UK (2)
[1972] 1 All ER 121 [1974] 2 All ER 21
AU (4)
[1999] VSC 488 [2003] NSWSC 447 [2012] HCA 49 [2015] WASC 251
MY (5)
[1976] 2 MLJ 116 [1997] 3 MLJ 681 [1997] 4 CLJ 740 [2018] 9 MLJ 782 [2023] 10 MLJ 670