英文摘要 |
Consider a corporate director who is engaged in internal accounting fraud, sells his stocks before the fraud is detected and disclosed to the public, thereby avoiding hefty losses. Is the director’s sale of stocks an insider trading?
A court decision holds that the director is guilty of accounting fraud, but commits no insider trading. The court indicates that the information of accounting scandal is material, capable of adversely affecting the stock price when it is revealed, and that the director did trade on that information. However, the decision points out that the material information regulated by Art. 157-1 of the Securities Exchange Law (“the Law”) does not include the information that will not be disclosed to the investing public. Since the director is not obliged to reveal his own criminal activities under his rights against self-incrimination and freedom of speech, the information of accounting scandal will not be disclosed, and therefore not the material information covered by Art. 157-1 of the Law.
According to this view, accounting fraud (or other criminal offense that would affect stock price) will provide corporate insiders with immunity from insider trading liabilities.
Not all court decisions take the same position though. Several other decisions do not exclude the material information that “will not be disclosed” from the domain of Art. 157-1.
This article discusses relevant decisions, analyzes different views, and concludes that corporate accounting fraud or other criminal offenses should not be a ground for insider trading immunity. To hold otherwise, salient loopholes will be created for the prevention of insider trading. |