Actions against company directors and management for serious market misconduct, it was noted that the following were charged for insider trading
Lee Lin Thai - was with TH group
Ramesh a/l Rajaratnam - was with MMM
Amran Awaluddin - was with Ranhill
Lim Kim Chuan - was with Melawar Industrial Group
Tan Swee Hock - was with Transocean
I assume that all these person's cases will be going through the judicial process and in time we will read a press announcement on the outcome.
Disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from wrong doers, it goes on to explain "Our civil enforcement powers provide us with the ability to pursue and deprive individuals of their ill-gotten gains derived from trading on material non- public information. CMSA allows us to claim disgorgement of up to three times the gains made or losses avoided by those in breach.The report says action was taken against the following:
Leong Ah Chai and Chan Soon
Huat for insider trading breaches
Teng Choon Kwang and Tan Boon Hwa for alleged insider trading activities
and the report further states, "In 2015, a total of six individuals entered into regulatory settlements with us following letters of demand we had issued to them. These settlements led to the successful disgorgements of up to three times the illegal gains made or losses avoided from such market misconduct." Here the individuals named were:
Teng Choon Kwang and Tan Boon Hwa for alleged insider trading activities
and the report further states, "In 2015, a total of six individuals entered into regulatory settlements with us following letters of demand we had issued to them. These settlements led to the successful disgorgements of up to three times the illegal gains made or losses avoided from such market misconduct." Here the individuals named were:
Sip Way Keong and his wife, Pang Soo
Ling
Puan Chan Cheong, Loo Poh Keng and Puan Kam Cook
Chan Chee Beng
Puan Chan Cheong, Loo Poh Keng and Puan Kam Cook
Chan Chee Beng
In total, a sum of RM3,083,666.70.
What is most interesting is that if you go to the Securities Commission's web site, you will note the following:
All the above agreed to pay their fines"without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing" All the individual concerned disgorged their ill gotten gains at a rate of three (3) times except for one at half the rate, i.e 1.5 times amounting to RM1,944,438.
Now why this individual was given what would seem to be special/favourable treatment is unclear but if the commission had invoked the three times (3) rule that would mean an additional RM1,944,438, or additional 63% of the total collected from disgorgement.
Perusing the commission's web site it was noted that for the whole of 2014 and 2015 only this individual had been disgorged at 1.5, whilst the rest were at 3 times! One could conclude that the either the Commission is cash rich or that it was a goodwill ang pow in view of the impending Chinese New Year.
While going through the web site it was also noted in another case there was an individual together with thirteen others that had settled for a total of RM7,000,000.00 for manipulation of shares. Why settle, is this not a criminal activity and should never be condoned!
Maybe the Commission could clarify the following:
1. Who determines when an insider trading case merits civil action or regulatory and administrative settlement?
2. How and who determines if disgorgement is at 3 or 1.5 times?
3. Can all those that were disgorged at 3 times now seek a refund of 1.5 times seeing that they agreed to the settlement without admission or denial of liability. After all times are difficult and challenging?
4. If an individual can afford RM1,944,438, than how much more ill-gotten income did he generate, should the individual not have been disgorged at 3 times, bearing in mind that the Annual Report states that the objective is to deprive them of their ill gotten gains!
5. Your report states "These settlements led to the successful disgorgements of up to three times the illegal gains made or losses avoided from such market misconduct." By not stating that not all the individuals were disgorged at 3 times (material facts) has the Commission not fallen foul of its own rules, the one pertaining to misleading statement as you failed to highlight the facts clearly and in keeping with your mission statement pertaining to transparency!
What is most interesting is that if you go to the Securities Commission's web site, you will note the following:
All the above agreed to pay their fines"without admission or denial of liability, to settle a claim that the SC was proposing" All the individual concerned disgorged their ill gotten gains at a rate of three (3) times except for one at half the rate, i.e 1.5 times amounting to RM1,944,438.
Now why this individual was given what would seem to be special/favourable treatment is unclear but if the commission had invoked the three times (3) rule that would mean an additional RM1,944,438, or additional 63% of the total collected from disgorgement.
Perusing the commission's web site it was noted that for the whole of 2014 and 2015 only this individual had been disgorged at 1.5, whilst the rest were at 3 times! One could conclude that the either the Commission is cash rich or that it was a goodwill ang pow in view of the impending Chinese New Year.
While going through the web site it was also noted in another case there was an individual together with thirteen others that had settled for a total of RM7,000,000.00 for manipulation of shares. Why settle, is this not a criminal activity and should never be condoned!
Maybe the Commission could clarify the following:
1. Who determines when an insider trading case merits civil action or regulatory and administrative settlement?
2. How and who determines if disgorgement is at 3 or 1.5 times?
3. Can all those that were disgorged at 3 times now seek a refund of 1.5 times seeing that they agreed to the settlement without admission or denial of liability. After all times are difficult and challenging?
4. If an individual can afford RM1,944,438, than how much more ill-gotten income did he generate, should the individual not have been disgorged at 3 times, bearing in mind that the Annual Report states that the objective is to deprive them of their ill gotten gains!
5. Your report states "These settlements led to the successful disgorgements of up to three times the illegal gains made or losses avoided from such market misconduct." By not stating that not all the individuals were disgorged at 3 times (material facts) has the Commission not fallen foul of its own rules, the one pertaining to misleading statement as you failed to highlight the facts clearly and in keeping with your mission statement pertaining to transparency!
No comments:
Post a Comment