Chess pieces

Shah & Co-defendants prosecuted by Financial Services Authority

Posted on 27/07/2012 · Posted in Criminal Cases, Financial Litigation

Insider dealing under Criminal Justice Act 1993

This is a criminal case which involved the FSA prosecuting a number of Defendants including financial adviser Paresh Shah for insider dealing contrary to section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993.

The allegations of insider dealing stemmed from a number of deals made by the Defendants between 2006 and 2008. The Defendants obtained highly confidential and sensitive information that was leaked from the print rooms of 2 major investment banks. They were particularly interested in information concerning takeover bids. It was their strategy to invest heavily in the shares of companies involved in a takeover in advance of any takeover announcement expecting share prices to rise significantly when the takeover became public knowledge. The Defendants minimised the risk of detection by conducting the deals across many different trading accounts.

The FSA launched an investigation into the activities of the Defendants and were forced to examine countless trades and records. In the interest of simplicity at trial, the prosecution focused only on deals related to 2 companies and a profit of approximately £730,000. In reality it is probable that the insider dealing was far more extensive.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court found 6 Defendants guilty of insider dealing. In handing down sentence the judge commented that insider dealing in this case was not isolated criminal behaviour and the 6 will serve prison sentences ranging from eighteen months to three and a half years.

The case is a milestone for the FSA. It has proven that it has the resources to successfully prosecute for insider dealing.

Interested in expert witness services?

Contact Us Now

Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.