LOW THIAM HOCK

LOW THIAM HOCK

The High Court held the prosecution proved the elements of s84(1) SIA: the appellant instructed purchases that were calculated to create a misleading appearance in Repco's share price; the defence explanations were afterthoughts not properly tested at trial and expert evidence of the prosecution (PW20) was preferred; therefore conviction was safe. The sentence of five years imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to one year while the RM5,000,000 fine was affirmed.

Citation
42S-3-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Low Thiam Hock; Respondent (public Prosecutor): Pendakwa Raya
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Case Number
42S-3-01/2016 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Securities Industry Act 1983 / High Court Appeal Judgment (conviction Affirmed; Sentence Varied)
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction under s84(1) SIA affirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced from 5 years to 1 year; fine of RM5,000,000 affirmed.
Legal Topics
Market Manipulation, Securities Industry Act 1983, Sentencing
Source Language
Malay/English
Criminal Law Securities Law Commercial Law Market Manipulation Securities Industry Act 1983 Sentencing

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Low Thiam Hock

Appellant

Pendakwa Raya

Respondent (public Prosecutor)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under Securities Industry Act 1983 / High Court Appeal Judgment (conviction Affirmed; Sentence Varied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant instructed purchases calculated to create a misleading appearance of Repco Holdings Berhad share price contrary to s84(1) SIA
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt
  3. 3 Whether the defence raised a reasonable doubt and whether the defence was properly put to prosecution witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the prosecution proved the elements of s84(1) SIA: the appellant instructed purchases that were calculated to create a misleading appearance in Repco's share price; the defence explanations were afterthoughts not properly tested at trial and expert evidence of the prosecution (PW20) was preferred; therefore conviction was safe. The sentence of five years imprisonment was excessive in the circumstances and was reduced to one year while the RM5,000,000 fine was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; conviction under s84(1) SIA affirmed; sentence of imprisonment reduced from 5 years to 1 year; fine of RM5,000,000 affirmed.

Orders

  • Conviction under section 84(1) Securities Industry Act 1983 (Act 280) affirmed
  • Original sentence of 5 years imprisonment substituted with 1 year imprisonment effective from date of this order