Chinese Wall in the securities industries

ManmohanJindal1 51 views 15 slides Aug 10, 2024
Slide 1
Slide 1 of 15
Slide 1
1
Slide 2
2
Slide 3
3
Slide 4
4
Slide 5
5
Slide 6
6
Slide 7
7
Slide 8
8
Slide 9
9
Slide 10
10
Slide 11
11
Slide 12
12
Slide 13
13
Slide 14
14
Slide 15
15

About This Presentation

Dear ,

It is a concept followed in Industry for better security


Slide Content

CHINESE WALL IN THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY
•CA. Manmohan Jindal
•Ex-Canara Bank,
•Registered Valuer in Security and
Financial Assets
[email protected]
•8850385224

•Companiesandbusinessorganisationsusuallycompriseseveral
differentdepartments,nevertheless,theyareregardedasan
independententitybylaw.
•Thisincludesintermediariessuchassecuritiesfirmswhich,asa
commercialreality,needtoundertakecomprehensivebusiness
throughmultipledepartmentssoastoimprovetheirmarket
competitiveness.
•Thiscausesconflictsofinterest,andincaseoflistedcompaniesand
associatedorganisations,givesrisetoconcernsofinsidertrading.

•Indiansecuritiesregulationsprohibittheoffenceofinsidertrading,
whichiscommittedwhenapersonwho“possesses”unpublished
price-sensitiveinformation(“UPSI”)relatingtosecuritiesofapublic
listedcompanytradedinsecuritiesofsuchcompany.
•Thetriggerfortheprohibitionisthe“possession”,whichneednot
riseto‘use’oftheinformation.

•Thepolicyobjectiveforthismeasureistoensurethatsecurities
tradingoccursona“levelplayingfield”.
•Inotherwords,itseekstopreventaninsiderfrompossessingan
unfairadvantageoverpublicinvestorsarisingoutofthemere
possessionofUPSI,knowninthecontextofinsidertradingas
‘informationasymmetry’.

•TopreventthemisuseofinsidertradingIndiahastheSecuritiesand
ExchangeBoardofIndia(ProhibitionofInsiderTrading)Regulations,
2015(“InsiderTradingRegulations”)whichprovidecertaindefences
tothepresumptivechargeofinsidertrading.

•Theuseof“ChineseWalls”isanotherdefencethatisavailabletonon-
individualinsiders,whoseconstituentmembersmaypossessUPSI.
•Itrepresentsaself-enforcedinformationalbarrierconsistingof
systematic,asopposedtoad-hoc,proceduralandstructural
arrangementsdesignedtostemtheflowofinformationinsuch
organisations.

•InIndia,theSEBIprohibitedinsidertradingforthefirsttimein1992
undertheSEBI(ProhibitionofInsiderTrading)Regulations,1992.
•Originally,theseregulationsdidnotprovideforChineseWalls,either
asadefencetoinsidertradingorasameanstomanageUPSI.
•Regulation3Bwasintroducedbyanamendmentin2002,which
broughtintheChineseWalldefenceintothe1992Regulations.

•To establish this defence, Regulation 3B required an organisation to
prove:
•(i)thatthedecisiontoenterintothetransactionoragreementwas
takenonitsbehalfbypersonorpersonsotherthantheofficeror
employeeoftheorganisationthatpossessesUPSI;and
•(ii)thatthecompanyhasputinplacesuchsystemsandprocedures
whichdemarcatetheactivitiesofthecompanyinsuchawaythatthe
personwhoentersintotransactionsinsecuritiesonbehalfofthe
companycannothaveaccesstoinformation(includingUPSI)whichis
inpossessionofotherofficeroremployeeofthecompany;and

•(iii)ithadinoperationatthattime,arrangementsthatcould
reasonablybeexpectedtoensurethattheinformationwasnot
communicatedtothepersonorpersonswhomadethedecisionand
thatnoadvicewithrespecttothetransactionsoragreementwas
giventothatpersonoranyofthosepersonsbythatofficeror
employee;and
•(iv)factually,theinformationwasnotsocommunicatedandnosuch
advicewassogiven.

•UndertheInsiderTradingRegulations,theChineseWallsdefenceis
setforthinthefollowingwords:
•“(a)theindividualswhowereinpossessionofsuchunpublishedprice
sensitiveinformationweredifferentfromtheindividualstaking
tradingdecisionsandsuchdecision-makingindividualswerenotin
possessionofsuchunpublishedpricesensitiveinformationwhenthey
tookthedecisiontotrade;and

•(b)appropriateandadequatearrangementswereinplacetoensure
thattheseregulationsarenotviolatedandnounpublishedprice
sensitiveinformationwascommunicatedbytheindividuals
possessingtheinformationtotheindividualstakingtradingdecisions
andthereisnoevidenceofsucharrangementshavingbeen
breached”

•TheChineseWallsdefence,ismulti-tieredandshouldbeestablished
inthefollowingmanner:
•(i)itmustbeidentifiedifanyofthemembersofacorporateinsider
possessUPSI;
•(ii)thecorporateinsidershouldestablishthattheindividualsthat
tookthetradingdecisionweredifferentfromthememberswho
possessUPSI,identifiedinthefirststep;and
•thatappropriateandadequatearrangementswereinplaceto
ensurecompliancewiththeInsiderTradingRegulationsandthat,no
UPSIwascommunicatedbythepersonsindividualspossessingUPSI,
totheindividualswhotookthetradingdecision;and

•(iii)lastly,thereshouldbenoevidenceofsucharrangementshaving
beenbreached.
•Thiscannotbetreatedassomethingthattheinsidermustprove,asit
wouldrequireproofofanegative,particularly,whentheSEBIheavily
reliesoncircumstantialevidencesuchastelephonecalls,common
addresses,etc.,tosupportfindingsofviolationsofinsidertrading
regulation.

•Inviewoftheabove,thedefenceshouldbereadsuchthat
•oncethefirsttwostepshavebeenestablished,theSEBImustcarry
theburdentoprovethatthereisevidenceofabreachoftheChinese
Wallsbysuchinsider.
•Iftheinsidersatisfiesthefirsttwoconditions,andtheSEBIisunable
toprovethattheChineseWallsfailed,thedefencemuststand.

•Thanks
•CA. Manmohan Jindal
•Ex-Canara Bank,
•Registered Valuer in Security and Financial Assets
[email protected]
•8850385224