Insider Trading And Criminal Sanction
What is Insider Trading?
Insider Trading refers to the buying or selling of a publicly-traded company's stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock. Insider trading can be legal or illegal:
Legal Insider Trading: When insiders (like employees, directors) buy or sell stock but report their trades to the regulatory authorities, following the law.
Illegal Insider Trading: When someone trades based on material non-public information without disclosing it, gaining unfair advantage over the general public.
Material Non-Public Information (MNPI)
Material information is any information that could influence an investor’s decision to buy or sell securities. If this info is not public and is used for trading, it constitutes insider trading.
Criminal Sanctions for Insider Trading
Insider trading is considered a serious offense because it undermines market integrity and investor confidence. Criminal sanctions vary by jurisdiction but typically include:
Fines: Large monetary penalties.
Imprisonment: Jail terms ranging from a few months to several years.
Disgorgement: Repayment of illegal profits.
Barring: Prohibition from serving as directors or officers of companies.
Key Case Laws on Insider Trading
1. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1971) - U.S. Case
Facts: Employees of Texas Gulf Sulphur learned about significant mineral findings before public announcement. They bought shares before the news was public.
Issue: Whether the employees traded on material non-public information.
Ruling: The court ruled that insiders owe a duty to the shareholders and must not trade on material non-public information.
Principle: Established the "disclose or abstain" rule — insiders must disclose material info before trading or abstain from trading.
Significance: One of the earliest and most influential insider trading cases.
2. Chiarella v. United States (1980) - U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Chiarella was a printer who deduced the identity of companies involved in takeover bids and traded stock before the announcements.
Issue: Whether Chiarella, who had no direct fiduciary relationship with the company, committed insider trading.
Ruling: The court held that there was no breach of fiduciary duty since Chiarella had no duty to the shareholders.
Principle: Insider trading liability requires breach of duty to shareholders.
Significance: Defined the scope of duty in insider trading cases.
3. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) v. Ketan Parekh (2001) - India
Facts: Ketan Parekh was accused of manipulating stock prices using inside information and circular trading.
Issue: Whether such manipulation and insider trading justified criminal sanctions.
Ruling: SEBI found Ketan Parekh guilty, banned him from trading, and ordered penalties.
Principle: Insider trading laws in India criminalize unfair market practices, emphasizing market integrity.
Significance: Landmark case in India illustrating regulatory crackdown on insider trading.
4. United States v. Martha Stewart (2004)
Facts: Martha Stewart sold her shares in ImClone Systems based on non-public information about the rejection of a drug application.
Issue: Whether Stewart committed insider trading or obstructed justice.
Ruling: Stewart was acquitted of insider trading but convicted of obstruction and lying to investigators.
Principle: Insider trading cases can involve complex legal arguments; conviction can be on related charges like obstruction.
Significance: Highlighted the difficulties of proving insider trading, but showed that related charges can lead to conviction.
5. Raj Rajaratnam & Galleon Group Case (2011) - U.S.
Facts: Rajaratnam, hedge fund manager, was charged with massive insider trading based on information from company executives.
Issue: Use of material non-public information for personal gain.
Ruling: Convicted and sentenced to 11 years in prison—the longest for insider trading.
Principle: Aggressive enforcement and harsh penalties for insider trading.
Significance: Showed the power of wiretaps and surveillance in uncovering insider trading networks.
Summary of Legal Principles from these cases:
Duty to Disclose or Abstain: Insiders must disclose material information or abstain from trading.
Fiduciary Duty: Liability depends on whether the trader owed a duty to shareholders or the company.
Materiality and Non-Public: Information must be both material and non-public to trigger insider trading laws.
Criminal Penalties: Insider trading attracts severe penalties including imprisonment and fines.
Enforcement Tools: Surveillance, wiretaps, and cooperation agreements are key to prosecuting insider trading.
RELATED Blog
0 comments