Tuesday, 31 March 2015 01:55
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
There are some obvious features of what is commonly understood by the term insider trading in this whole saga. It is most likely therefore that the investigative committee would recommend some form of action.
In practise though, there are very few insider trading convictions when they are not supported by hard evidence such as phone-taps. The defence usually argues that the so-called inside information was already available to any qualified, diligent, intelligent, hard-working, etc. market professional.
Defence lawyers literally grill prosecution witnesses to establish their case, to highlight a qualitative shortcoming on the part of the witness. The prosecution needs to establish that the information was truly insider. If it fails, a huge damage claim follows. All this is going to happen in the backdrop of the June elections.
Selvaratnam
