01f-17-05-2024w — XXXX v XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara

Outcome

In the premise of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) (01f-17-05-2024w). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

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

Constitutional Law

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

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.

Statutes Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 593)

Federal Constitution

Art 145(3)

Securities and Futures Act

s 220

Securities Industries Act 1993

s 89

Securities Industry Act

s 89E(1)(a)

Securities Industry Act 1983

s 89E

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