英语论文网

Insider trading has 代写留学生论文long been regarded as reprehensible as far as securities regulation is concernedin Singapore. Insider trading was made a specific criminal offence under the Companies Act in 1970.1Since then, the rules have undergone significant amendments; the first major amendment occurred in1986 in the aftermath of the crisis surrounding the collapse of Pan-Electric Industries Ltd2which led tothe enactment of the Securities Industry Act 19863(SIA). Under the SIA, to establish the criminaloffence of insider trading, the prosecution was required to demonstrate the defendant's connectionwith the relevant company either as an insider within the specified categories of relationships or as atippee. This is also known as the “person-connected approach”.

The second major amendment occurred following the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98 and the reviewof the securities laws made by the Corporate Finance Committee in 19984which had recommended aparadigm shift in the regulatory mindset from a merit-based regime towards a disclosure-basedregime5that is in line with developed markets. As a result of that review, the Securities Industry(Amendment) Act 2000 was enacted to introduce civil penalties and civil compensation orders tostrengthen the enforcement framework.6The SIA was repealed when the Securities and Futures Act2001 (SFA) came into force. The SFA redefines conduct that constitutes insider trading, replacing the“person-connected approach” under the SIA with the “information-connected approach”, pursuant towhich insider trading liability is not dependent on whether the person trading on inside information isconnected with the relevant company but whether he is in possession of inside information.

Prior to the insider trading provisions in the SFA coming into force on October 1, 2002, there havebeen relatively few prosecutions (and convictions) for insider trading in Singapore.7However, in 2005and 2006, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of prosecutions and convictions, as wellas the institution of civil penalties proceedings, for insider trading.8The presence of successfulenforcement actions may indicate that the reforms on the prohibition on insider trading are proving tobe effective and those actions send a clear message to the market that the local regulators will haveno hesitation in enforcing such prohibition.

This article examines the scope of the prohibition on insider trading regulation in Singapore, in light ofits policy objective. Specific attention will be directed to certain pitfalls in the application of such rulesto takeover transactions, which are particularly relevant because such transactions often involveprice-sensitive information and opportunities exist for persons to undertake insider trading so long asthe information is not yet announced https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/to the market. This article argues that the broad-basedregulatory framework based on market fairness and efficiency may have led to over-regulation, whichwould run counter to its overall objective of encouraging market vibrancy and investor confidence.Where relevant, a comparison is made with the regimes in Australia, the United本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。