The defendant received price-sensitive information. The Attorney-General appealed his acquittal, the judge having directed the jury that in order to have ‘obtained’ information within the subsection, he must have carried out some act, that he had expended some effort or acquired the information on purpose.
Held: The meaning was wider than as stated by the judge, and included any individual who had obtained information from another. No more was required than to receive the information.
Citations:
Times 19-Oct-1988
Statutes:
Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 1(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1988) HL 1989
The defendant received price-sensitive information. He was acquitted of ‘obtaining’ the information, the judge finding that he had done nothing positive to acquire it. On appeal the court held that no such act was required,
Held: Nothing . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1988) HL 1989
The defendant received price-sensitive information. He was acquitted of ‘obtaining’ the information, the judge finding that he had done nothing positive to acquire it. On appeal the court held that no such act was required,
Held: Nothing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Company
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.198911
