Regina v Austin & Manasseh [2001] NSWSC 484

Regina v Austin & Manasseh [2001] NSWSC 484

Although the offences were not technical or trivial, imprisonment was not appropriate because the transactions had little, if any, discernible effect on the market, no personal gain was identified, no loss was shown, and the cases were less objectively serious than authorities involving deliberate deception or artificial price effects. A fine was inappropriate, particularly given Austin's lack of capacity and the absence of financial benefit. A discharge without conviction was also inappropriate because the offences were serious enough to require convictions. Each accused was therefore convicted and released without sentence on a three-year good behaviour recognisance under s 20(1) of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Creating a False or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Securities Under S 998(1) of the Corporations Law / Sentence Following Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
Convicted; each accused released without sentence on recognisance conditioned on good behaviour for three years under s 20(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Legal Topics
['share Market Manipulation' 'false or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Securities' 'wash Trades' 'matching Orders' 'federal Sentencing' 'recognisance Release']
['criminal Law' 'corporations Law' 'securities Law' 'sentencing'] ['share Market Manipulation' 'false or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Securities' 'wash Trades' 'matching Orders' 'federal Sentencing' 'recognisance Release']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Creating a False or Misleading Appearance of Active Trading in Securities Under S 998(1) of the Corporations Law / Sentence Following Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the transactions relied upon against each accused fell within the deeming provisions in s 998(5) of the Corporations Law for the purposes of sentence.' 'What objective seriousness attached to the offences, including whether the transactions were technical, de minimis, dishonest, or caused market effect, personal gain or loss.' 'Whether a sentence of imprisonment, a fine, discharge without conviction, or release on recognisance was appropriate under Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offences were not technical or trivial, imprisonment was not appropriate because the transactions had little, if any, discernible effect on the market, no personal gain was identified, no loss was shown, and the cases were less objectively serious than authorities involving deliberate deception or artificial price effects. A fine was inappropriate, particularly given Austin's lack of capacity and the absence of financial benefit. A discharge without conviction was also inappropriate because the offences were serious enough to require convictions. Each accused was therefore convicted and released without sentence on a three-year good behaviour recognisance under s 20(1) of the...

Court Disposition

Convicted; each accused released without sentence on recognisance conditioned on good behaviour for three years under s 20(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

Orders

  • ['Conviction entered upon the verdict of the jury for Leslie Raymond Austin.' 'Conviction entered upon the verdict of the jury for Maurice Showa Manasseh.' 'Leslie Raymond Austin released, without sentence being passed, upon giving security without sureties by recognisance to be of good behaviour for a period of...