Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Insider trading

  • 8 Apr 2025

    XXXX XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara

    Citation
    01(f)-17-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    f
    Case number
    01(f)-17-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    The Federal Court held that s.89E does not create strict liability but requires the mental element that the insider knew or ought reasonably to have known the information was not generally available; it does not require proof of an intention to use the information; materiality is assessed objectively from a reasonable investor's perspective and may take into account post-acquisition events and conduct; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal judgment affirmed.

  • 8 Apr 2025

    XXXX XXXX AMICUS CURIE Jabatan Peguam Negara

    Citation
    01(f)-17-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    f
    Case number
    01(f)-17-05/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    The Federal Court held that civil proceedings under s.90/s.90A of the SIA are remedial and distinct from criminal prosecutions; Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution governs criminal 'proceedings for an offence' and does not require the Attorney General's consent for civil enforcement by the Securities Commission. On the merits the courts below were correct that the appellant possessed non‑generally available, price‑sensitive information, knew or ought to have known it was not generally available, and that the information was material; the High Court's disgorgement and ancillary orders w…

  • 22 Apr 2024

    SURUHANJAYA SEKURITI MALAYSIA 1. ) LIM KOK BOON 2. ) CHEAH MEAN HAR

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-389-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-389-09/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found all statutory elements of insider trading satisfied: 1st defendant possessed inside information and communicated it to 2nd defendant (s188(3)); 2nd defendant acquired GWP shares while in possession of that information (s188(2)); the information was not generally available until the public announcement on 3 October 2012 (s184); defendants knew or ought reasonably to have known information was non-public and material (s188(1)); circumstantial evidence (close personal relationship, volume/timing/value of trades, proximate communications, missing SM…

  • 13 Feb 2024

    Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Dato' Aminuddin Bin Md Desa

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-573-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-573-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities, circumstantial evidence (close relationship, funding trail, timing and pattern of trades, phone call proximity, joint benefit and attempts to conceal modus operandi), unrebutted by the defendant who elected not to give evidence, established that the defendant, an insider, jointly acquired PCB shares (or procured Jamal) while in possession of inside information in contravention of s188(2)(a) (alternatively s188(2)(b)) CMSA; statutory remedies under s201(5) and s360 follow.

  • 13 Apr 2023

    Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Toh Kai Fatt

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-416-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-416-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the defendant received material non-public information from PW2 (an insider) as established by compelling circumstantial evidence (intense communications timed with large, atypical purchases, acquisition patterns and volume), the information was not generally available until the Bursa Announcement and was material (a proposed takeover would reasonably influence investors), and the defendant traded while in possession of that information; accordingly the defendant contravened s188(2)(a) CMSA and is liable to remedies under s201(5) and s360 CMSA.

  • 22 Dec 2022

    XXXX XXXX

    Citation
    22NCC-146-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    22NCC-146-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the 1st Defendant attended the emergency WCT board meeting and had possession of the MEYDAN Cancellation Notice, communicated that non‑public material information to the 2nd Defendant by a pattern of calls/SMS shortly before and during disposals, and the 2nd Defendant acted by disposing 1.64 million shares prior to public disclosure; the information was material and not generally available, therefore both Defendants were insiders and breached s188 CMSA; the 1st Defendant's counterclaim failed for lack of proof.

  • 16 Nov 2022

    Suruhanjaya Sekuriti Malaysia Ng Back Heang

    Citation
    WA-22NCC-162-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22NCC-162-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant attended and was present throughout the 24.5.2012 meeting where auditors raised audit queries (inside information) that were not generally available, that the Defendant knew or ought to have known they were not generally available, that the information was material (corroborated by a 55% share price collapse after public announcement), and that the Defendant disposed of shares after possessing that information; accordingly the Defendant contravened s188(2)(a) CMSA and the Plaintiff was entitled to treble avoided losses (RM1,23…

  • 5 Sept 2022

    XXXX XXXX

    Citation
    W-01(NCC)(W)-599-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    NCC
    Case number
    W-01(NCC)(W)-599-11/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Court held that (1) AG consent is not required to commence a civil action under SIA s90A(5); (2) on the balance of probabilities appellant possessed information that was not generally available and was price-sensitive and thus was an insider; (3) appellant acquired shares in the prohibited period and therefore committed the prohibited conduct under s89E(2); (4) proof of 'improper use' is not required given legislative redefinition; High Court orders (3x disgorgement RM1,989,402, civil penalty RM1,000,000, 10-year director disqualification, interest and costs) were upheld and appeal dismissed.

  • 31 Mar 2022

    XXXX XXXX

    Citation
    22NCC-146-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    22NCC-146-05/2015 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    On the balance of probabilities the court found 1st Defendant attended the emergency board meeting and thus possessed the non-public Cancellation Notice, circumstantial evidence of intensive short-duration calls/SMS between defendants around disposal dates together with expert evidence of materiality established that 1st Defendant communicated the inside information to 2nd Defendant who then disposed of shares while in possession of that information; the information was material and not generally available and both defendants thereby breached s188 CMSA; counterclaim dismissed for lack of proo…