The CFO's dinner tip and the fund manager's trades
At a dinner on 12 March, the CFO of Harbour Logistics Group, a company listed on the Main Board, tells his friend Mr. Cheung, a portfolio manager at a licensed asset manager, that the company will issue a profit warning 'within two weeks' because its largest customer has stopped paying. He says the information is confidential. Mr. Cheung sells 2 million Harbour shares from his fund the next morning and buys put warrants. He also mentions the tip to a junior analyst, Ms. Ho, who buys shares in her personal account. Harbour announces the profit warning on 28 March; the share price falls 22%. The SFC's Market Misconduct Tribunal proceedings begin. Mr. Cheung says he did not know the exact date of the announcement and that the information was already 'rumoured in the market'. Ms. Ho says she did not know the source was confidential.
1. Did Mr. Cheung and Ms. Ho engage in insider dealing? Apply the elements.
Read the worked answer
Likely yes for both. The information from the CFO was specific - a profit warning within two weeks because the largest customer had stopped paying - was not generally known, and was price-sensitive. The CFO was a connected person. Mr. Cheung received the information from a connected person, knew it was confidential, and dealt by selling shares and buying put warrants. His claim that he did not know the exact announcement date is irrelevant; inside information does not need a fixed timetable. A 'rumour in the market' defence requires more than asserting that others were talking; he must show the information was in fact generally known or that he reasonably believed it was. Ms. Ho received a tip from Mr. Cheung and traded. If she knew or ought reasonably to have known that the information came from a confidential corporate source, she too engaged in insider dealing. 'I did not know the source was confidential' is not a complete answer where the circumstances clearly signalled it.
2. What are the main differences between the Market Misconduct Tribunal route and criminal prosecution, and what sanctions could follow?
Read the worked answer
The MMT is a civil route. The SFC brings proceedings before the Tribunal, which decides whether market misconduct, including insider dealing, has occurred on the civil standard. It can impose a cold shoulder order, disqualification, a cease-and-desist order, a fine of up to HK$10 million or three times the profit gained or loss avoided (whichever is higher), costs, and referred disciplinary action. Criminal prosecution requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and can lead to imprisonment and fines; the SFC may refer serious cases to the Department of Justice. The MMT is often used where the evidence is strong but criminal prosecution is not the best fit. For the firm, the reputational and licensing consequences may be as serious as the sanction itself. Mr. Cheung's employer may also face SFC disciplinary action for inadequate supervision.
3. What control failures at the asset manager does this case suggest, and what should be done?
Read the worked answer
The case suggests weak information barriers, poor personal account dealing controls and inadequate training. Mr. Cheung used fund positions and personal warrants after a confidential tip; Ms. Ho traded in a personal account. The firm should have a written personal account dealing policy requiring pre-clearance and periodic attestation, restricted lists, a surveillance system that links external news and price movements to employee trading, and mandatory training on inside information and tipping. It should also review the fund's trades around 12-28 March, preserve records, interview staff, and consider whether any other client or employee was tipped. If a breach is found, the firm should report to the SFC where required, remediate investors, and strengthen escalation to compliance. A general 'don't insider deal' annual email is not an adequate control.